JUSTICE
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. We are on Resolution 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The first question. In the Estimates over a year ago there were a number of questions that the minister took under advisement and would get back to me with answers on. I am wondering if the minister now has the answers to the questions from the last round of Estimates.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am told that that information is available, and I will attempt to table it this afternoon, and if not, by Monday.
Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to receiving the information. I certainly want to receive that information before the end of the Estimates and preferably today so that if there are follow-up questions we can deal with the minister when the appropriate staff is here.
A second question. Yesterday one of the interns from our caucus and a representative of myself went to the Community Release Centre to review the temporary absence passes of several individuals and was denied access to those documents, which, I understand, are public; and, in any event, under The Corrections Act, their MLAs do have authority to enter into correctional institutions. I am sure the minister would agree, the Release Centre is one of those that I have access to information that is in the public interest. The intern was advised that the minister must approve access to the documents there. I am wondering if the minister can now assure me that either myself or my representative can attend the community release centre to review the temporary absence records at that facility and that she will communicate that through her officials to the release centre immediately.
Mrs. Vodrey: I know the member has been looking for all kinds of information, I presume, in an effort to avoid the wrong information that has been put forward several times. Access to institutions is one thing, but access to specific files that may contain information about third parties is another issue. At this point, the best I can do for the member from St. Johns is to look into the matter.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister taking the position that the temporary absence passes and those records at the community release centre are not available either to the general public or to the opposition Justice critic?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that we will look into the contents of those documents. It would appear that if and where there is information about third parties, information which we feel is viewed as actually private information, not something which the member needs, then we would want to make sure that we were able to look at that. So my answer to the member was not categorical. My answer to the member was that I will look into the matter, and I will get back to him.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would impress on the minister that it is not her role to decide what this member needs. It is this member's and this caucus's duty to make that determination. I ask the minister to now assure me, assure the public of Manitoba, that those documents are indeed public documents--they are of public interest particularly at this point--and that she will allow my access to them.
Mrs. Vodrey: I have answered the question to the member. I have told the member that I will look into the matter. I have also explained that there may be information which is information about third parties. The member has, in my view, not always used information wisely in total with all the information required to come to some of his conclusions, to jump to some of his conclusions in other areas. I will not suggest that is at issue now, but I will say that it is also my responsibility to review his question, to look into his question, and I will get back to him when I have had the opportunity to do that.
Mr. Mackintosh: If that is the minister's position, I ask whether the minister will make the inquiry she speaks of and advise me of her position on this before the conclusion of today, or at the latest, the conclusion of Estimates on Monday.
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly will make every effort to do that.
* (0910)
Mr. Mackintosh: I cannot help but comment, when the minister alleges that this member or members on this side have not used information wisely or jump to conclusions, I think that is the ultimate--it almost verges on being funny if circumstances were not so tragic revolving around the statements made by the minister following the riot at Headingley.
Given that an intern from our caucus went to the Provincial Court, I believe it was last Thursday, and asked for the criminal records of one Donald Rene Rouire and was given a terribly incomplete account of that individual's record, I would like the minister to explain how she could oversee an administrative component that would fail to respond to a request in the public interest in a thorough and complete way.
Mrs. Vodrey: I have been informed the records are under the control of the Chief Judge we administer, and so I can only look into the question raised by the member opposite to see if it was a matter of the administration side, or if, in fact, there was any direction by the court, and I will have to get back to him on that.
Mr. Mackintosh: My clear understanding that the court itself, none of the judges were involved in responding to the request, it was simply at the administrative level, at the front desk level. I guess the simple question is, is there not a simple computer access to the records of individuals that have been convicted in this province in the Provincial Court?
Mrs. Vodrey: I want to be careful to have phrased this correctly so that I am telling the member exactly what my understanding is, and I am going to look to my officials to make sure that my statements, if they require any further correction, I can make them now. It is my understanding that the complete criminal record is not generally released to the public, that the police would have the records in CPIC. I understand that there is a certain amount of confidentiality around what is within that file.
Individual convictions are available, but where the member wants more information than that, I gather that in that case there may be some question about ability to get that further information.
Mr. Mackintosh: There are two kinds of records that I understand are to be public records and should be readily available through access by a computer with a touch of some fingers. The first is a simple conviction record noting the date of the conviction and the charges that the conviction was based on, as well as the sentence. Is that information not readily available through a computer system?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told no, that that is not available on computer as the member has described it. That, in fact, you would have to look up manually. Prosecutions in the Provincial Court are not available. What would be available are common offence notices, Court of Queen's Bench cases, but the criminal cases for the Provincial Court are not available in the same way.
* (0920)
Mr. Mackintosh: I would urge the minister to modernize for the sake of victims and the community generally the recording of information about convictions in this province. It seems to be an antiquated system, and one which on repeated occasions I have discovered to be somewhat difficult to access, which I do not think is in any way in the public interest. I might add that by complex method, it is only then one has the capability of finding out the dispositions and usually it is through listening to the transcripts of the sentencing hearings. So I would urge the minister to get a system in place which provides better information to Manitobans, one that is supposed to be public information.
My next series of questions relates to the sex offenders that were let out of Headingley following the riot. According to the minister's statement late yesterday afternoon, there were 13 individuals who were let out, one of whom was released according to a bail order, so I will not deal with that individual. I think that is a different category. Four of the individuals, according to the minister, served out their sentences. Could the minister tell me for each one of those the dates their sentences were completed, and by that I mean when, according to the disposition of the court, was to be their last day of sentence?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is asking now about specific Corrections issues, and I gather may want to get into detail around that. I am wondering if it is possible to have that considered then when Corrections officials are here.
Mr. Mackintosh: The reason for me asking it now under this heading is very clear; it is to find out what is in the minister's knowledge, which is what is the question on people's minds, certainly on my mind, and this follows on the statements by the minister and no one else yesterday. Her deputy is here, and other staff, and I am sure that they have all the records before them since they had those records yesterday afternoon. So I think the appropriate time to deal with it is now. If the minister says she does not have the information here, then she can put that on the record, but I would like to know the date, the end of sentence for the four individuals.
Mrs. Vodrey: The detailed information the member is asking for should be dealt with when the individuals are here, so I am not sure how he would like to proceed.
Mr. Mackintosh: Yesterday the minister said to the media and may in fact have been prepared to give the information to the Legislature, although she chose the wrong avenue, I would suggest, to do so yesterday in the Chamber. She had that information then; surely she has it now.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member seems to feel that I have all of these things specifically committed to my memory. That certainly would lead to some problems and difficulties and question about whether or not I was accurate, and so my comments today are that I believe the information would be best covered when that line is dealt with.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, when the minister is asked this question by the media in the hallways, I am sure she will attempt to come up with an answer. I ask that she give the same, at least the same respect to this Chamber and what it means. Tell me, she has lots of paper there, she has information, she has apparently the full report. She asked for it to be on her desk last Thursday morning. I simply want to know when the four individuals' sentences were up. A simple question. I am sure she knows.
Mrs. Vodrey: I think it is a very important question. The member has spoken about the seriousness of this situation, and I too think it is a very serious situation. We have been dealing with very serious matters for now some four weeks since the day of the riot, and it is important that the information that I give is correct, that information is as complete as possible and there not be misunderstanding about the information that I give. Members have been very anxious for information, as have many, and I have attempted to provide information as it has come to me as quickly as possible.
I have found that in dealing with that, every time I provide information there seems to be some effort to either misunderstand or misspeak about that information by the other side. I clarified information last Friday about four specific inmates who were named, and what was then said about that was that I said there were only four.
There seems to have been continuous effort to deliberately misunderstand or perhaps, I do not know if I am allowed to say “misrepresent,” Mr. Chair, information that I have provided, and so I am being very careful. I am prepared to answer questions, but I want to make sure that I have the full information available to me. The member has raised the issue of four individuals and of course we have been talking about approximately 13 who are not in the institution.
It would only take me giving one piece of information from memory that the member would then go again and say that I had not been factual with him and with the public. That is not my position. My position from the very beginning has been to be factual, truthful, with the best information available to me at all times, and I feel that it is important to make sure that I have that best information available to me. So, though the member might like to skip ahead for whatever purposes he has in mind, and I am not going to even try and guess at that, I am just going to say in consideration of the Estimates, he is asking information which is available when we reach the Corrections line. I am not making any attempt to make the study of these Estimates difficult in any way, but what I am wanting to make sure, Mr. Chair, is that I have not been premature in any answers attempted to answer from memory and then have the member stand up and attempt to use that information in a negative way, which, I think, we have seen happen several times.
I feel now that it is just absolutely imperative to consider the information in order when the best information available is here. I will take a moment to say that this has been a very difficult few weeks for Justice. We have been dealing with some major issues: one of them a riot, one of them some labour difficulties, and then another issue in which there is an alleged criminal act by a person who was on a TA, allegedly a criminal act by that person. This has required a tremendous amount of time and effort to make sure that things have been done properly, certainly as well as possible. We have made every effort to provide the information, but, Mr. Chair, it is at times time consuming to make sure that that information is checked and correct. As I have said, I have provided what is considered to be the best information possible, and I want to continue doing that. So in my efforts to do that, I am not in any way attempting to make life difficult for the member opposite. We have a lot of Estimates to cover. I am here and prepared to do that, but I feel that in areas of Corrections it would be most helpful to have the Corrections people here. That is why we have staff available to us in the Estimates consideration, and that continues to be my position.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I was listening very intently when the minister, I guess within her statement, posed a question of the Chair. I am not sure if it was the word “misrepresentation,” but it was along those lines. It has been indicated in the past by the Chairperson that when we use the word deliberately, it would be asked to be withdrawn. So I would ask the honourable members to choose their words very carefully as we proceed.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is the ultimate insult to hear this minister talk about misrepresentations from this side of the House. This side of the House has been provided with incomplete information by the administrative component of her department. That is the only information which has not been full and complete. It is not within the first-hand knowledge of the official opposition and to have access to the criminal records, to the list of people who were let out, to the whole range of information that we have been seeking from this minister. For this minister now to say that she has done nothing but make every effort to get all the complete information and has been forthcoming with Manitobans is simply not correct and does not bear out.
* (0930)
One does not have to go beyond yesterday when this minister had the gall to stand up in this Legislature and say that she only talked about four sex offenders because that is all she was asked about, when, indeed, the question was open-ended and did not in any way constrain or direct the minister to give answers about four sex offenders only. The minister was asked about sex offenders. The minister earlier was asked about offenders generally. The minister now says that she has been complete and very careful with all the information that she has brought to the public forum, and therefore she cannot give answers today. I suggest it is too convenient for the minister to make that argument now. It does not bear out. When the minister is now sitting here with the information that she made public yesterday, she trots out this argument. It is too convenient, Mr. Chair, and it does not wash.
If the minister refuses to give this committee the information about when these four sex offenders' sentences ran out, I have another question for the minister. She indicated to the media yesterday afternoon that two sex offenders were released to the care of chiefs and councils in their aboriginal communities. Will the minister tell the committee when this arrangement with the chief and councils was made for each of these two individuals?
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me just consider the remarks of the member opposite first of all. Let me just go back to say, when was I asked about four inmates? I was asked about four sex offenders last Friday when names were read out on a local radio station and certain information given. The member across the way has also continued to give out information. If he says he has been provided with incomplete information or not all the information that he wants, I have to ask him, why does he go out publicly and trot that information out as if he knows exactly what is happening? Then, when the full information comes out, he has to try and stick to his story, as has happened on the other side of the House several times.
Mr. Chair, the issue on Friday was four specific inmates, where there was reference made to four specific inmates, and some of that information was not correct, and it was important that I was available to correct that information in terms of whether those inmates were released, whether they were out on temporary absences, and I did that. When the question was posed about sex offenders and sex offenders who were released under whatever conditions--end of sentence, temporary absences, had they served in their programs--I made every effort to deliver that information and delivered it in the House, by the way, yesterday, but I was stopped by members opposite because they did not want the answer to that. They decided that was not what they wanted anymore, because it was clear that their information, what they had been putting out for days, was just not correct.
So, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that my comments have always been factual; they have been to the questions asked. I have attempted to provide the information, and there has been a great deal of information requested, a great deal of information requested while we are still managing a system which has been under tremendous pressure for the past few weeks. So I certainly have to say that I resent the comments of the member in terms of how questions were being asked, and I have, in fact, tried to answer all of his questions fairly and openly but with the correct information.
I have to tell you I have never heard that it was wrong to say, I will find out. I have never heard that that was wrong. If the information the member asked is not directly committed to memory, because there is a volume issue here, then I do not think saying, I will find out, and coming back with that information is an inappropriate way to handle the issue.
The members across the way do not like the answer: I will find out and get back to you. They do not like it. They would prefer to have continually information such as theirs put on the record and then have to go back and continually try and deal with it. As I have said, my efforts are, to the best of my knowledge, the best information that I have received, the best information available at the time, and that is what I have been dealing with.
The member asks about two inmates who were released to their communities, and I do not have the exact date of their release to the communities. If the member, again, would like to consider that when we reach the Corrections line, then I will make every effort at that time to have that information available. I do not believe I have, at this time, that date of their release here now.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is incredible at a time like this, with a statement just made yesterday afternoon, late in the afternoon, the minister cannot come in to her Estimates the following day and give basic information. I then have to ask the minister, is it established practice of her department to release sex offenders to the care of chiefs and councils of aboriginal communities?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is continuing on the line relating to Corrections and Corrections policy, and I know in specific he would like to deal with two cases, and I am saying to him that where he would like to deal with the specifics of those inmates, it would be helpful if he considered that at the time of the Corrections line.
It is not unusual in this House, Mr. Chair, in fact,--and you can correct me--for information to be considered in certain lines, because it is Estimates, because it is a detailed look, for that to be considered at the time of that line when staff are available and when details are available. Even if those details are not available, I undertake to get the information. I have brought information back to this House on a regular basis, and so the member has asked me another question about regular practice.
I can only give a very brief answer to that, and I am not able to, at the moment, provide him with information on the specifics. As he does know, we do have community participation agreements with some of our aboriginal communities in which they agree to supervise probation. That has been part of our effort to work with aboriginal communities and that is one way in which we do, and I spoke about that last year in Estimates.
Now, if the member has some difficulty or question regarding these specific inmates or that this may, in fact, happen, then I would be very interested if he would put it on the record and make himself clear.
* (0940)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before we proceed, may I direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have with us from Eastwood Elementary School the Grades 7 and 8 students under the direction of Myra Dunn. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether the aboriginal communities involved with these two sex offenders were parties to participation agreements?
(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to tell him that now. I used the example of community participation agreements as a way that sometimes inmates are released to their communities. Whether or not these specific inmates were released under those terms, I am not able to tell him at the moment and have said that I will be happy to talk with him about that when we reach the Corrections line.
Again, I could attempt to speculate, I could attempt to try and give information which is not before me. I just do not feel that that is really appropriate or fair to all of the individuals involved and the people of Manitoba. So though I am prepared to answer those questions to the best of my ability at the Corrections line, it seemed to me we had a number of issues to get to before that line. I have other staff available at the moment. That is my recommendation.
Mr. Mackintosh: This move of releasing the sex offenders to the care of the chiefs and councils, I ask the minister, has she considered what that means? What care? What liability? What programming? Is this part of a program? Was this a unique circumstance?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said before, again in a general sense, in the consideration of temporary absences, I am informed that some of the issues that are looked at are the issues such as support of a community, a plan for that individual within the community, what supports are available to that individual within the community including employability or programming, who will take responsibility for that individual, is there some very specific plan which has been put forward.
I gather that on a regular basis we attempt to look at those issues and we also try, in the case of sex offenders, to contact the victim and to consider the views of the victims. I am able to say to him in the case of the individuals I spoke about yesterday, in most cases, my understanding is that the victim was contacted. It was only in cases where we were unable to contact the victim that that was not done. In any case, the important part is that we attempt to take into consideration also the views of the victim.
So the plan and the terms and the help available to the individual, the reaction of the community, the community support and the views of the victim are considered and, to my knowledge, were considered in these cases.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell this House whether the two sex offenders released to aboriginal communities, in her words into the care of the chiefs and councils of their communities, had programming and supports in place, were there participation agreements? What happened? What does she mean by releasing them into the care of the chiefs and councils?
By the way, Mr. Chair, I am not suggesting that this concept is unacceptable because quite frankly it may very well be a worthwhile endeavour within the spirit of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, for example, but not, I would suggest, unless there is a participation agreement, not unless there is programming or supports, not unless the issues of liability and definitions of care have been defined. Can the minister please explain what she means by the care of the chiefs and councils?
Mrs. Vodrey: The department does administer the individual details and so that is why in these two very specific cases I am asking the member to wait until we have Corrections staff available so that I can make sure that I have the best information possible for these two cases. However, I have spoken again in a general sense about what we would expect and what we would look for, some of the criteria that we look for on release of temporary absences, which to my knowledge was brought forward in these individual cases. I am not able to answer without staff here, again, some of the details that he has spoken about. I would be surprised, and somewhat am surprised by his line of questioning in this area because it seems to me the questions from the other side, the questions from the NDP, have been for us to work with our aboriginal communities, to work with our communities and to involve them, especially where they are particularly interested in being involved.
I find it almost contradictory as I am listening to his line of questioning, which is somewhat accusatory, that perhaps this should not have happened. I am not able to comment at the moment, and I certainly will provide him with the details as they are available to me. I am somewhat puzzled by what I see behind this. It seems to be a philosophy very difficult to describe, for him to put into words. There seems to be some sense of resistance on his side, and I wonder if all members across the way feel the same. It is sometimes very difficult to find out from members across the way whether they all feel like this, or whether only one or two feel like this. It was clear that there was a split on their position on gun control registration. We knew we had some members on the other side writing to say that they did not support registration. Then we had an official statement which said that they did.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chair. There she goes again. The position about releases to aboriginal communities has just been put on the record by this member. The point of order is that this minister is not dealing with the question. I ask that the relevancy rule be applied.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.
Because there is a lot of leeway within 1.(b)(1), I would ask the minister if she could be relevant towards the questions. It does help the decorum a little bit more, and I think we have been moving along quite well since we started and I would appreciate if we could keep it that way. The honourable minister to continue her answer.
* * *
* (0950)
Mrs. Vodrey: The point I am making is simply in the discussion which takes place in Estimates as I am attempting to answer questions. I am attempting to understand from the member opposite if he may be taking a view contrary to a view that appears to be expressed by his party which is working with aboriginal communities. His line of questioning appears to suggest a reluctance to do so, and I am simply pointing out that we have seen in the past that individual members have taken a position different than their party and, if so, it is very helpful for us to know if he, in fact, feels differently, particularly in this situation.
So that is why I am asking for some clarification from the member in the process of Estimates where we do have a little bit more opportunity to try and understand the questions and to try and understand the issues that are being raised by the other side. So, in terms of the specific question, I have explained that when Corrections is here I will make every effort, with detail available to me at that time, to answer.
In a general sense, I have provided an answer and have said that much of this information is also required for inmates who are released on temporary absences, that we have information about things such as employment and support that they might have within the community. To my knowledge, this same information and criterion was applied to these inmates and also that this was offered by the aboriginal community as a group.
I think the member would agree that community support would be helpful and is important and is important in helping people be able to try and move in the right direction and away from the criminal activity that they may have been in our institutions for.
I just would add to that to say community support is, I believe, very important in all of the issues that we are dealing with in the area of corrections, in the area of prevention, because we feel that community participation is helpful on all sides, and that is why this government has made a very specific effort to get communities involved and to find out how communities would like to be involved, not only on the corrections side, not only to deal with inmates who may have temporary absences or people's release, but to have them involved in the prevention side, to have them involved in youth justice committees, to have them involved in programs such as Neighbourhood Watch.
So there seems to be certainly an interest in the communities in becoming involved in the justice system at several points, and it would be one area that I think would be quite important for the release of inmates on temporary absences, and I will be happy to answer when Corrections is here.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether the chiefs of the two aboriginal communities were contacted by Corrections officials, or indeed herself, before the release of these sex offenders back to the communities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, to my knowledge, yes, but I would find it best to confirm that when Corrections officials are here to provide some specific information about how these arrangements were reached.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would say this is very frustrating. These are questions that are timely and within the minister's knowledge or ought to be. I understand that at least two of the sex offenders released had outright refused programming in the institution. Given her breakdown released yesterday, in what category are these two? Are they in the eight that were given temporary absences, for example?
Mrs. Vodrey: Very honestly, I want to check, because there has been a great deal of information. We spoke about four last week, and they were speaking about eight others today on temporary absences, and I think it is best to clarify which of those inmates are which. So my answer remains the same, that it would be very helpful to have Corrections here so that I can answer in detail the questions of the member opposite.
Mr. Chairperson: Could I recommend that possibly those members wanting to carry on their conference could do so in the loge.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister has just told the committee, after speaking to the media yesterday and giving the details, insufficient as they were, about the sex offenders released by her, she cannot tell this committee the status of the two who we understand outright refused programming at the institution. That is unacceptable, Mr. Chair. She must know this information. Is it the case that the minister either is covering this up, or just as bad, has not informed herself of such an essential matter? I ask the minister to respond.
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly resent again the member's comments of cover up. I would ask you, Mr. Chair, if in fact those comments are parliamentary or whether his suggestion that there is an attempt to do this is parliamentary because, in fact, that is absolutely not the case.
Over the past few days we have had numbers of inmates, some named, some not named, which I have had to then attach names according to certain criteria, and I have given information about some inmates who have completed the program, some inmates who have partially completed the program and then attended programming in the community, some who did not attend the program but were released on medical grounds, so there has been a lot of information. When I have spoken about these people in detail as I did yesterday in the House, I had information before me which allowed me to give correct information, which allowed me to give the information sought.
Now the member seems to be saying he is having trouble getting the information that he is seeking. What I am saying is, I am happy to give him the information he is seeking. I think it is important, too. I tried to give it yesterday in Question Period; he did not want to hear it then. But that information has to be correct, there is just no point in my guessing. He can say as many times as he wants to that my desire not to guess or to say something incorrect is something that offends him or he has some problem with, but, Mr. Chair, he may want to try and trap--maybe I should not say “trap.” [interjection] He would like to trap, but that simply is not going to be the case. He can continue to push and to try and ask me to make comments as he has--[interjection]
* (1000)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask all honourable members to show the common courtesy to wait for the answer as I expect the people answering the questions to wait for the questions. We do not need the heckling happening in this Chamber. We will maintain a level decorum as we have since we have started the proceedings. At this time the honourable minister has the floor.
Mrs. Vodrey: It certainly is easier now without the calling out of members opposite who seem to find it difficult when members are attempting to answer the question if they are finding the answer a little hard to accept.
Now the answer is the same. The answer is the same as it has always been. There has been a great deal of information which has been given out. There have been a great deal of numbers thrown out by the other side which I have in an orderly way attempted to correct and to categorize. That has been the job that I have had to do based on their incomplete information.
They tell me that they are worried about public safety. I say if they are worried about public safety, why do they not come and tell me who they are worried about so I can try and do something about it?
The most difficult part is that they go outside and they make allegations of concerns about certain inmates and about public safety, but they do not ever bother to bring that information in the real interests of public safety with names that they are worried about so that I can deal with them and I can check them out through Corrections and take steps, if those steps happen not to have been taken, to deal with it. Our interest is public safety; their interest, Mr. Chair, is grandstanding. Their interest is to try and make some political points--
Mr. Chairperson: Order please. The honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask that you call the minister to order, ask her to withdraw the imputation that this side is grandstanding. This is a very serious issue of public safety. We have done what is in the public interest in raising questions, asking the minister to confirm or deny allegations that have been made by a correctional officer. We have provided the Community Notification Committee with information, asked them to get back to me if they need more information. The minister is the one who has the names. The minister has that information. It is her department. They are the inmates in the custody of her, and I ask the minister to withdraw the statement that this side is grandstanding. That is imputing a motive that is unparliamentary.
Mr. Chairperson: The word “grandstanding” has been used many times in Question Period and has never been ruled out of order, at this time, but I would caution the honourable minister to choose her words carefully. It is not necessarily the words, but the context in which they are used that does cause disorder. I would appreciate it.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her statement.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, if members opposite were truly interested in public safety--they admitted that they had the names, they said they had the names. They did not bother using them here in the Chamber, but they told others, oh, we had the names of these people that we are worried about, but they never came to the Minister of Justice with the names of the people that they were worried about so that if something could be done that had not been done, then it could be done.
So what we see over and over again from the other side is a bunch of numbers thrown up, a bunch of allegations thrown up, and they say, I throw up these allegations in the interests of public safety, but in fact if they really had the interests of public safety at heart, they would come and say, as other members across the way have done--you know, Mr. Chair, it is not entirely unheard of for the other side in the real interests of their community to come to our side and to ask our assistance, and when that has happened, and I think we have seen evidence of it in the past few weeks, we have been able to work with that community. It is our intention to work with the community too. It is our intention to deal with public safety; and, where that has actually happened, the public has been well served.
Where it has been more difficult is where there have been numbers thrown up, allegations made, information on the other side where they have said, well, gee, we know the names of these people, but we are not going to tell.
An Honourable Member: I do not know the names.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, that is what the public statement was. Not in here, mind you. If there is-- [interjection] Mr. Chair, it is very difficult to answer when the member for St. Johns is screaming from his seat because I have touched a nerve. He is very sensitive about this point, and I am attempting to answer in the Estimates process. His behaviour speaks for itself.
Now to continue. We have had allegations and numbers thrown up by the other side by unnamed sources, by anonymous sources. We have had allegations that they certainly know names, and names have not been provided in the interests of public safety. As Minister of Justice, what has been important for me to do is then to make sure that I have the facts and that I deliver the facts as they are available to me to the people of Manitoba, and to make sure that where there are allegations or concerns that I check into those. Where the member has information that he would like me to check into, I guarantee you I will most certainly do that, but when he presents those allegations as facts, that becomes the difficulty for the people of Manitoba.
Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps the minister could confine herself to the reality here and of course allegations that are made by this side are indeed allegations, and we speak of them as such. Names that are given to us are allegations and no more. It is the minister who knows the names. In that regard, I ask the minister, of the 13 sex offenders let out--well, let us talk about the 12 and leave aside the one released due to a bail order--how many were incarcerated for assaults or interferences with children and how many were against adults?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have that information available at the moment, that is, information on specific files which would be available through Corrections. I have to tell the member, even when we get to the Corrections side, had he asked that question first at Corrections, I may have to have checked at that time. However, having asked the question, I will expect that I have that information available to me when we get to the Corrections line.
I have not at any time spoken publicly about the individuals in terms of who their victims may have been. In some cases, as I am sure the member knows, we want to be very careful because the inmates have sometimes been identified publicly, and we want to be careful not to in some way identify the victim if the victim is a child specifically. That is always the issue that we have to deal with when we deal with a child who has been offended against, to not make that child somehow the object of public interest. That is why there is always a great deal of care put forward in terms of the trial of these individuals.
If the member is trying, through the backdoor, to have names of inmates released and then find out who offended against children and in some way identify the victim, I do not see in any way that that is in the public interest for Manitobans. As a matter of fact, I find it shameful. I find it shameful that the member across the way would have so little regard for the people of Manitoba in terms of wanting to identify victims. In terms of general numbers, where I am able to and where it is in the public interest, yes, I am happy to provide that information, but I will at this point say it is with caution that I will determine whether or not that information is in the best interest.
* (1010)
What we have had is we have had names of inmates read publicly, and we have a Community Notification Committee. That Community Notification Committee does have the opportunity to identify inmates who are released to communities where, in the public interest, we want communities to know that this person is a pedophile. But I want to be very careful not to tie a specific offender and a specific victim which is, I believe, where his question is leading. I would think it most important to rely on the process that we have of the Community Notification Committee.
The member has said that he has had some contact with the Community Notification Committee, and that certainly is the right of citizens. We have set that committee up in the public interest, by the way, a committee that he said was useless, a committee that he said had no effect, a committee that he said--[interjection]
Well, you know, the member across the way again is screaming from his seat. He screams from his seat that now he has changed his mind about this, but he was on the record when the Community Notification Committee released its report as saying that--I paraphrase here--it was just worth nothing. So now we find that he thinks it might be worth something because he decided that he should use it, as citizens have the right to do.
There are two opportunities to use that Community Notification Committee: one, at the release of an inmate; and secondly, where a community person believes that the behaviour of an individual may be causing risk to the community. Generally that report is made to the police who are able to investigate if that person has been convicted and then make the referral to the Community Notification Committee. However, the Community Notification Committee operates independently. Certainly it would be my expectation and belief that they would want to co-operate in the interests of public safety, and I have not had them contact me about any calls from members opposite; I would not expect that to happen. There is that opportunity, if the member is worried about certain inmates, for him to deal with the Community Notification Committee. His question, however, I would just put the proviso in: I think it is very important not to be able to identify a victim attached to an inmate.
Mr. Mackintosh: This is really a sham, a disgrace to this Legislature. This minister has really lost it. To suggest that I want to identify victims now from that question is so absurd.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to put his comments through the Chair and not directly to any other member within the Chamber, as you are putting your question. [interjection]
I might have missed something. I will listen a little more intently.
Mr. Mackintosh: For the minister to suggest that I had called the Notification Committee useless is just nonsense. I certainly have talked about the limited potential of that committee, and indeed the minister must recognize that. We want to know why these individuals, how dangerous people are knowingly released into the community in the first place. That is the issue that I wish the minister would address, and I think the Arthurson inquest report speaks loudly about what this minister's actions are when it comes to sex offenders in Manitoba.
The question that the minister avoided, of course, was how many are rapists, how many are pedophiles, and she got off on her tangent. Very unfortunate that the minister does not have that very, very basic information.
I also then asked the minister if she said that the victims were contacted, when were they contacted?
Mrs. Vodrey: There is no tangent but the tangent the member opposite is on. The member opposite asks about victims. I made it clear that I will give the best information possible without tying any victim to a particular offender because names are being spoken about. The member across the way frequently has not really cared very much about due process. He constantly asks for me to speak about individuals who are charged and before the court, constantly trots out information, often comes dangerously close to the line for contempt.
Mr. Mackintosh: Answer my question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Now he screams from his seat again. He screams from his seat again because I touched the nerve. I touched the sore spot of his behaviour, Mr. Chair.
To the matter of notification of victims--[interjection] Mr. Chair, it is very difficult to speak over the calling out of the members opposite. I ask you to bring them to order.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If the honourable member wants to carry on a conversation within the Chamber, I would appreciate he do so in the loge.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yesterday I provided information about the fact that it is our intention to notify victims, certainly where we can find those victims. Certainly, in the temporary absences which I spoke about yesterday, I did say that victims were informed where victims were able to be found. Sometimes we just cannot find them, but efforts have been made. The opinions of victims have been sought in several cases, or at least notification has been made when individuals are released. I believe I answered that question yesterday. I can answer in more detail. There is, however, at least one case where I am not able to speak very much about the victim, but in cases where possibly, yes, victims have been notified and where they have not been, I will be able to give them the details when the Corrections line comes.
Mr. Mackintosh: I feel it is my responsibility, for the record, when the minister describes interjections from this side as screaming, it is just so laughable. It may well be that I may come to that, Mr. Chair, if the minister continues to avoid the questioning. Since the minister will not tell the committee when the victims were told, would she at least describe for the committee what the victims' thoughts were on the early release of these offenders, since she said that they were canvassed?
Mrs. Vodrey: I would ask the minister to correct the record, correct the record in his comments that I would not tell this committee. My comments have been at all times to say that when we come to the Corrections line, I will be able with the staff available to deal with the details of the questions he has asked. There has not ever been any refusal. This is the difficulty with the member opposite in terms of his ability to understand. We are going through the Estimates of the Department of Justice. It is important the information I give be correct. He has focused his questioning on Corrections. We are not yet at the Corrections line. I have said to him that when Corrections staff are here I will attempt to provide him with the information that he has asked for, as I have attempted to provide it for him over the past few days.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
* (1020)
Mr. Chair, he asks me to memorize the individual cases of approximately 13 inmates who were released either at a legal release date end of sentence or on temporary absences, and I do not have that information memorized. So what I am saying is it is best given correctly when Corrections are here. We know very well that if I try and answer that from memory, if any mistakes are made, the member across the way will then continue to say that information given is totally incorrect. My effort is to provide correct information, because we know that there has been more than enough incorrect information in the form of allegations presented as fact by members opposite.
I would want to make it clear to this House, I am glad to be able to make it clear in Hansard, to clarify again that I as minister have not in any way refused to answer the questions. I have asked that the questions be posed in the budget line when staff with the details are available. That is clear, that has been stated over and over again. The member across the way chooses not to understand. I have given him as much information as possible in a general sense. I have spoken about our intention to notify victims. I have spoken about the fact that many of the victims were, in fact, notified, and I have said that in some cases we were not able to notify those victims or to find them, that being the difficulty.
However, in terms of the exact numbers, I do not have that committed to memory. In the interests of public safety, particularly in the interests of the victim, we do try to provide that notification.
Mr. Mackintosh: If the minister is having difficulty with garnering information, which I suggest she either has or ought to know, would she agree to moving to the Corrections line this afternoon beginning after lunch, and then we will return to Executive Support after we have completed the Corrections lines?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think that we have a number of issues to consider, and I think we should be considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice in order.
Mr. Mackintosh: Last Friday when allegations were made about the release of sex offenders, four at that time, the minister came back in the afternoon and essentially confirmed the allegations. At that time, was she aware of the release of other additional sex offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have to say, first of all, the member's comments of, you know, came out of my office. If I do not come out of my office, he complains, if I do come out of my office, he complains, so he seems to have a problem no matter what.
However, last week there were allegations of four named individuals, and so I did ask for detailed information on those four inmates immediately and was able to correct information about their release. My understanding was there had been some questions, were they released on temporary absences, were they released at end of sentence, had they taken programming, had they not taken programming and so I wanted to clarify that information. However, I also, I believe it was on Friday, indicated the actual numbers of inmates released from Headingley and, yes, some of those inmates were among the sexual offenders who were released. I did not have available the detailed profile at that time. What I was responding to was the names of four individuals who were released who were sexual offenders who were among the number at that time of 63.
On Friday I provided the information about numbers of individuals. I believe it was Friday. We have been releasing numbers every day, it seems to me, this week trying to deal with numbers, trying to make sure that the numbers are accurate. So I did not ever say that those were the only four; I never said that. Now, I think the member opposite might have reported that I said that, but I did not say that, and I think that is a very important difference when we are talking about whether or not information has been accurate.
It is very easy to run out and say, oh, she said this or he said that. I think it is important to know what I, in fact, did say, and I did not ever say that these were the only four. I was commenting on four. I was asked to correct information which was out about four inmates last week who were sexual offenders, or in for sexual offences, but at that time I spoke about numbers of temporary absences in general across the province and included in that were inmates out on temporary absences for sexual offences, who were incarcerated for sexual offences.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to be clear, I think the minister confirmed this, but would she just clearly confirm that last Friday when she said 63 people had been released that she knew that among those 63 there were as many as 13 and certainly more than four sex offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: At that time I had received global figures of the inmate release. Included in those global figures were four, the four inmates which I spoke about last week. We were compiling a profile of individuals. When asked to specifically identify how many of the 63 were, in fact, sexual offenders, I did that and I provided the information. In fact, I provided more. I provided how many were sexual offenders in Headingley at the time of the riot, that 31 of those were, in fact, still in custody. Then I spoke about those who were released. So I spoke on Friday about general numbers. Included in those general numbers--well, 63 temporary absences but four people last week, three of them were not on temporary absences, only one was. Three were at end of sentence.
This has been the difficulty with the numbers, and helping both the member opposite, the media and the public understand the way individuals are released, whether they are released at legal release date, at end of sentence, or whether they are released on temporary absence. Obviously the criteria for time served is different. When people are released on early release, they have served a certain amount of their sentence and there is a legal release date. Temporary absences require a different amount of time served, and they may be released from the institution, not to be fully released into the community, but again on temporary absence.
As I have explained, when people are released on temporary absence, they are then available to be brought back into the institution if there is any infraction resulting from any conditions. I made it clear last week, I used the example of one individual who was released on temporary absence who was not allowed to indulge in intoxicants, who, we were informed, had been drinking at a party; that person was brought back into custody.
So I have been dealing with different types of releases. I have been trying to be clear about those different types. It is obvious that members opposite do not always understand who has been released under what terms. It is obvious that the media as well is struggling to deal with how people are released, to understand.
I believe it was yesterday in Question Period, or the day before, that one of the members opposite asked me a question, and I do not have the Hansard with me, but in summary it was basically like, well, how can I let them out, in general. Well, you know, people do come to the end of their sentence and I do not have the ability to keep those people in, at least right now.
I have asked the federal government to look at changes for those people considered high-risk sexual offenders. We discussed that most recently at our ministers of Justice conference in Ottawa with the federal government. We discussed was there any way to extend a person's sentence who has not participated in programming who is still a risk to the community.
* (1030)
At the moment the information I have is that there does not seem to be a way to do that or the federal government has not found a way to do that. So, at the moment, the best that we can do is look at ways to keep track of high-risk offenders, to keep track of those people that we want to know where they are. In our community we deal with a community notification process which was the first of its kind in Canada, but members opposite have asked me to find a way to keep people in jail even when their legal sentence is up. We do not have that way right now.
That is why it is important to understand how people are released. Whether they are released on temporary absence not at the end of sentence, released under certain conditions into the community, and otherwise if people are released at end of sentence, at the legal end of sentence, which is a requirement, that unless there is some reason in terms of the remission to not grant that, that has to occur. Then, even without remission, people still reach the end of their sentence and sometimes they reach it without having taken part in programming and members opposite have asked, well then, do not release them. Much as, in many cases, that might be what many would like to do, we do not have a way to do that at the moment.
Mr. Mackintosh: We have received a letter this morning from the Community Notification Advisory Committee, advising that it is the policy of Manitoba Corrections for staff to assess an offender prior to release for possible referral to the relevant police service so that notification to the committee can be considered. I ask the minister whether that was done in the case of the sex offenders released.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed again, though Corrections is not here, regarding the community notification issue, that inmates were assessed that, at the time of their assessment, it was not seen that these inmates were ones that would normally be referred to the Community Notification Committee through our usual process. However, as I have said, there are two ways that individuals can get referred to the Community Notification Committee. They can get referred by Corrections, provincial Corrections, federal Corrections, who assess that based on a criteria these individuals have not met the criteria and do continue to pose a risk to the community as sexual offenders; they can be referred.
However, we wanted to make sure that where the community was worried, where the community believed that there was in fact some concern on their part, there was a mechanism also for the community to make that referral. I understand that members opposite may have done that. I will have to ask the member if in fact that information is correct, but it is open to citizens who are worried about the behaviour of an individual.
The steps are a referral to the police; the police would investigate. Where an individual has been convicted of a sexual offence, as a pedophile or a sexual offence, the police may then determine that, based on that individuals behaviour, they will refer the individual to the Community Notification Committee. The Community Notification Committee will review the behaviour of that individual who is currently in the community.
So it is important to know that there are two ways and we have always made that clear since the formation of this committee that there are a couple of ways in which individuals deemed as a risk to public safety may be dealt with. I go back again to our discussion at recent ministers of Justice conference. This is Estimates; I think it is important to provide information to the other side, as well as to the public, that there is a general concern across this country about the release of inmates considered to be high risk but who have reached the end of their sentence.
We have asked the federal government to work with the provinces to look at a mechanism, because right now it just is not there. We do not have a way. There will be a new category called long-term offender, but whether or not that really meets our criterion to maintain people still considered to be a risk in an institution for as long as is deemed necessary, I do not believe that has yet met that criterion though I believe it is a step.
What our province proposed then was a mechanism to at least notify communities. We have asked the federal government to look at a tracking system, but there was agreement and discussion at the ministers of Justice conference that even a tracking system requires you to across this country deal with mobility and that we want to come to a way to deal with high-risk, long-term offenders, but the federal government has to play a part in this.
So our government said, well, if you are not ready to do it, we will do what we can within our jurisdiction and put forward the Community Notification Committee. That is what we have done and, as I said, there are two ways in which an individual's name may come forward before that committee and the member references his use of the committee in his question.
Mr. Mackintosh: Getting back to the issue at hand, is it then the conclusion of the minister and her department that none of the sex offenders that were released would likely be referred to the notification committee by the police?
Mrs. Vodrey: I will just give the member a little bit of information that I do have available. He may want to get back to this at the Corrections line when more detail can be provided, but in a general way inmates are first of all initially assessed during a risk assessment on admission and at that point if they are rated as a high-risk individual, then they are flagged to be watched as a potential referral to the notification committee at the end of their term. There is also a second risk assessment which is done, and it assesses criteria based on nature of offence, previous offences and a number of criteria which, I gather, are used--I am told are used--on a regular basis.
It is my information at this time that that criterion was used and was applied and that based on that criterion, there was not an individual assessed at that time by Corrections for referral to the Community Notification Committee. However, as I have said, if there is a concern that members opposite have regarding a specific individual, there is a method open to them, as it is open to all citizens, to make that referral. That is why we felt it was important to have another method as well.
* (1040)
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us whether the conditions attached to temporary absence passes for those released after the riot have been reviewed since the time of their first release?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the member asks a question which is most properly posed when we reach the Corrections line of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. So I give him an answer again to the best of my knowledge at this time, and I am hopeful that he will use this information in the way that it has been given, the best information at this time.
To my knowledge, inmates have been assessed in an ongoing way for compliance to their conditions. I am also told that the risk assessment has been reviewed as well. I am told that some individuals have been brought back into custody. I say that does speak for the fact that there has been an ongoing review, but I say to the member again, if he has individuals known to him that he is concerned about, in the interests of public safety, bring them forward. In the interests of public safety, tell us whom he is worried about.
We have been doing our assessments, to the best of my knowledge, but if there are individuals that the member knows about, that he has information about that would be helpful in the assessment, then the right thing to do is to bring it forward and to say it and to give it to us, and let us--and I say “us” meaning the professional correctional officers, my department--then act on that information. I would say, you know, we have known there has been some information put forward which is not entirely correct, but at least it would enable us to correct information and put the member's mind at ease; or, if he has information that we should know about and we can act on and it is found to be correct, an inmate should be returned, then that is what will happen.
I have listened to him speak about public safety. I have listened to him speak about his interest in public safety and acting in the interests of public safety, and I want to believe him. Then I say, follow that up with some action. If there is something that is available to you that would be helpful to the people of Manitoba--we knew it--then please bring it forward.
Mr. Mackintosh: I can assure the minister that we will take the appropriate action to protect the public interest if she will not with regard to the sex offenders, and we will make further inquiries.
I ask the minister, since she has said that there are 63 individuals released on temporary absence, did that number include Donald Rene Rouire?
Mrs. Vodrey: The number 63--the number that I spoke about on Friday, and I want to just say that that number which was the number last Friday--obviously fluctuates, that number, so I do not want the member to say that I said there were only 63 and always 63. That was the number on Friday. The number will periodically change as other people become eligible for temporary absences or people on temporary absences reach the end of their sentence, in which case they will no longer be a temporary absence. So the numbers will vary and they will vary day to day.
I think that that is important, because we are dealing with people, who as I said, may become eligible who were not eligible even a week ago or who reached the end of sentence now who were not at the end of sentence when that temporary absence was granted.
To my knowledge, the number 63 did not include Mr. Rouire because at that time it is my information that he was charged and therefore he would not be out on a temporary absence because he was in custody at that time.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us how many other individuals released on temporary absence following the riot or subsequently, either charged or in custody, in addition to Mr. Rouire?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have that information available at the moment because we are not on the Corrections line, so I would be best to answer that question, just so that the question is posed appropriately and I can look at having that information available. The member asks, of the numbers spoken about last Friday, how many of those may have re-offended and be brought back into custody. Was there another part to that question that I missed?
I will endeavour to have that information, the best information available when we come to the Corrections line.
Mr. Mackintosh: In addition to the individuals released on temporary absence numbering at least 64--and I note that while the number fluctuates, we have an increase from 324 TAs, for example, on April 25, up to 393 by May 7, so obviously the numbers go higher than 64 at times--I also would like the minister to tell the committee though how many individuals were released, as she says, at end of sentence following the Headingley riot.
Mrs. Vodrey: We have two issues posed in this question. One, a series of numbers thrown up by the member regarding numbers of people on temporary absences and I am not able to confirm those numbers. To my knowledge those numbers are not correct, and so I will have to check and see if those numbers--again, according to the Hansard that he has recorded them on--are correct.
I believe he knows that people listed on temporary absences, to my knowledge, include people who are serving intermittent sentences. People have releases for a number of reasons and also, to my knowledge, include those on federal parole as well, and so numbers appear to be large. They are not necessarily numbers of individuals on temporary absence released at the time of the Headingley riot. I want to be careful that those numbers are not misunderstood in any way.
The member asks a second question to say, how many individuals were released at end of sentence? That will require me to have Corrections look into that data and have Corrections have that information available. I gather they will have to go through and compile it; they may have it already available. I have attempted to answer as carefully as I can, how many that has been.
I have so far focused on the number on temporary absence. Yesterday, I spoke about four inmates who were sexual offenders who were released at legal release date and one who was released on bail at a court order. I just want to make sure that the record is straight, that there is no question in the mind of members opposite: I have never said that there were only four people released at end of sentence. That was a response to information that I had according to a question of how many were sexual offenders who were released at end of sentence. The number that I was given yesterday, to the best of our information and to my knowledge, was four, but I did not ever say that that was all there was.
* (1050)
This seems to be the difficulty in that I give information in response to a specific question as I did last Friday--four inmates released, three of them on end of sentence, one on temporary absence--and then I am told that I said, well, no, you said there were only four sexual offenders. I did not ever say that, and I want to make it clear now with every statement that I make so that it cannot ever be misunderstood. I have undertaken to have Corrections determine how many individuals were released at what is considered legal end of sentence, legal release date.
Mr. Mackintosh: The figures that the minister was given on the absences included both legally and unlawfully, so the difference would include those numbers--just when she is looking at those. My question to the minister is, in addition to those on temporary absence passes, how many were released because, in her words, they were at end of sentence?
Mrs. Vodrey: I just explained that I will ask Corrections to undertake to compile those numbers and to look at how many people were released. I think he is asking, after the Headingley riot or in the week or so after the Headingley riot, who were considered to have reached their legal end of sentence. I was also making it clear again that I have not ever yet given any number which was considered to be a total number of people who reached the end of sentence. I just want to make that clear on the record so there is no misunderstanding.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in that, of course, the minister is just playing with words. She led Manitobans to believe that there were only four sex offenders. When the question was asked generally about the release of sex offenders in this House, she talked only about four.
I ask the minister if she could tell us if arrangements were made with correctional facilities outside of the province of Manitoba to deal with the demands put on the correctional system in Manitoba following the riot.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member is the one who plays with words continually. The member is just unbelievable in the things he said which is why--and then he wonders why in the process of Estimates do I think that it is so important to have in front of me the absolute most detail that I can have, the most correct and up-to-date detail. The member goes off and talks about a statement, that he has been attempting to tell people that I said there were only four sex offenders released. That is absolutely wrong. I never said it. I would like him to withdraw it because that is simply not the case. It underscores why I am being so very, very careful in my answers, because it is clear he does not understand the answers given and things must be answered so very, very carefully and completely because the member opposite is just having a great deal of trouble.
Now, admittedly, this is a very difficult situation. It is very complex and I understand that it is very complex for people to try and understand the difference between temporary absences, between legal release date, where earned remission fits in. These are not terms that citizens normally deal with on a daily basis, and when someone is mixing them up and confusing them, then it is easy to see why people have had a confused message. That is why I am being very careful to be very, very specific about the terms used and the numbers used so there is no confusion.
The member asks, were other provinces approached to assist us, and yes, they were. I can say to the member that we were very pleased with the co-operation that we have received from other provinces, particularly Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan did assist us in the housing of inmates, and we received just tremendous co-operation in the transportation of those inmates and in the housing of those inmates.
I had the opportunity to talk with the Minister of Justice from Saskatchewan when we were in Ottawa together at the ministers of Justice conference, and those accommodations had been made. I did have the opportunity to thank him personally on behalf of the people of Manitoba for the assistance of Saskatchewan Corrections and his department in assisting Manitobans in this difficult time. I think that it is continually important that we are able to co-operate where possible as provinces, and this was one instance where that did occur.
Mr. Mackintosh: How many inmates were transferred to Saskatchewan facilities?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have those details here. As I said, the exact numbers which were transferred to another institution I will have available, I expect to have available when Corrections is here and when we reach the Corrections line.
I just want to underscore again the fact that I will make that information available to the member when we reach that line.
Mr. Mackintosh: What does the minister mean by the term “end of sentence”?
Mrs. Vodrey: This is a term which is used--the legal end of sentence--the time at which, I am informed, by law an inmate will be released unless there is that within the institution which would disentitle that individual to be released. The legal end of sentence time is the two-thirds date. There is an entitlement if the individual has not--the assessment of Corrections, that they have not earned that remission, then they may be kept in for the final third.
It is most accurately a legal release date than a legal end of sentence, and to try and make the term clear, that will be the term that I will try and use for consistency certainly in the Estimates and in the process of our further discussions. So we are talking about legal release date, a date determined by law and it generally is about two-thirds of the sentence.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Mackintosh: If one is a sex offender and does not enroll or complete the programming in the institution, is one still entitled to release on the two-thirds date, or is there an automatic requirement that the final third must be served?
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before we proceed, may I direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us from Garden Grove School forty-seven Grade 5 students under the direction of David Boult. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, there is some complexity to the answer and so I would prefer to give the detailed answer at the time that Corrections is here to be able to explain more fully what factors may come into play, and particularly in this province where we have attempted to make sure that that earned remission time, as it is sometimes referred to, is truly earned. But the details I would prefer to answer when Corrections is here.
* (1100)
Mr. Mackintosh: The Winnipeg Free Press reports today that the minister said, and I quote: “the Community Notification Committee was not notified in any of the cases”--that is the 13 sex offenders released, and I continue the quote--“because most of the offenders on temporary absence had completed or participated in the program for sex offenders.”
I ask the minister, since when was participation in a program the basis for not notifying the notification committee?
Mrs. Vodrey: I did go through earlier some of the criteria that are used by Corrections in terms of a referral to the Community Notification Committee, and when a person does participate in some treatment and how they respond to the treatment may in fact be one of the reasons to refer them to the Community Notification Committee.
I wonder if the member could just maybe add a little bit more to the question he has asked. I am finding it hard to distinguish that question to previous questions around referral. I did tell him that to my knowledge there had not been referral, that there had been an assessment and that theses inmates were not seen to be at the risk level--I am informed, according to the assessment--for referral. Again, if the member has further information, then I would be pleased to hear it or if he would like to add to his question so I can attempt to answer it in a more full way, then I will be happy to do so.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister saying that one of the criteria as to whether or not someone gets reported to the notification committee is the enrollment in or completion of programs for sex offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, it is not to my knowledge, and again this is an area for Corrections, enrollment in specifically; it is to my knowledge a responsiveness to the program, and there also may be other factors in the assessment as well which require a person to be referred to the Community Notification Committee.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister saying then that she is confident that if one completed or participated in a program for sex offenders, they will not pose a significant risk to the community?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there would be an assessment of the person's responsiveness to that program and, where they appear not to have been responsive according to the professionals, that that might qualify as one of the reasons for referral to the Community Notification Committee.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister saying then that the words attributed to her as paraphrased, it is not in quotes, but in the Free Press today is incorrect, the words that I read into the record?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have the article in front of me, the article which the member does. I did quickly view it. I do not believe that it is incorrect. I am not quite sure what point he is trying to get to in this case. If he could be somewhat more clear about the allegation that he is making, then I will make every attempt to answer it.
Mr. Mackintosh: If the minister does not believe what is in there is incorrect, I would take issue with any decision that one should not be reported to the notification committee simply because they participated in or completed the program, because that is what the paper said. Because if that was the criteria, then what you are saying is, you are using the nonreporting to the notification committee as an incentive to enroll in programming. To enroll in programming should be to change behaviour, so I will just leave that on the record, of my concern.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would say to the member that I am supportive of the positive that changing behaviour is the issue, and it seems that in this case we have agreement that that is important. I am not quite sure where he sees a discrepancy. The information reported was in response to questions. Had people attended programs? Yes they had or no they had not. I was trying to provide that information.
If the member now wants to get into a more detailed discussion about those individual cases and the decision by the professional group whether or not to refer them to the Community Notification Committee, then that, perhaps, can be undertaken when Corrections is here. I have to--we set the policy as this government and it is carried out by professionals within the field and if there is some question that the member is raising about how the practice of this policy was actually dealt with, then it is something that I think we do need to look into. I do come back to saying that I have been informed, to the best of my knowledge, that these particular inmates were not assessed at the level which would be referred to the Community Notification Committee.
There is always the option for a community who observes behaviour that they are concerned about to report to the police, the police to investigate and a referral be made from the community. So the member seems to be questioning the decision making of the correctional officers in their decision making to make the referral. If he is questioning that, then let us put that on the record that his question is, did they make this assessment properly, did they make a mistake. Obviously, we want to be sure that the practice is carried out in the interests of public safety too so, if that is his question, if that is his allegation, then I would be interested to know if that is his area of concern.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister simply confirm that her statement in the Legislature on May 15 that some inmates may have been released within approximately two weeks of their sentence completion is simply incorrect?
Mrs. Vodrey: Could I ask the member to pose his question again to clarify that the issue he is asking is that a statement made was that some inmates were released within two weeks of the end of their sentence?
* (1110)
Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister on that day was how many inmates had been released from provincial Corrections institutions not because of the usual criteria but because of the riot and the resulting pressures on the provincial jail system. She responded, it is my information that some may have been released within approximately two weeks of their sentence completion. Would she admit that that was wrong?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can say that the statements that I have made at all times have been to the best of my knowledge with the information, the best information that I have been provided with at that time. I am not sure at what part the member is taking issue that some inmates were released within two weeks of their sentence. He seems to be taking issue at some point here and I would need to know what his issue is.
Mr. Mackintosh: I will just put it to the minister that Mr. Rouire certainly had more than two weeks left to the completion of his sentence. Does that not speak for itself?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not have the Hansard in front of me that the member has and is referring to. From what he has said, he has said my comments were, some inmates were released within two weeks of the end of their sentence. That part is correct. To my knowledge, some were. That is what was said. He is now asking very specifically about a case which is before the court. He is now asking about a specific inmate who, and I want to be very careful, to my knowledge was released on temporary absence.
This is where the confusion of the wording for the member opposite seems to be a difficulty. Released at end of sentence, released on temporary absence, in what method of release is he actually asking me to comment on? But I will say that I am not able to comment on the case that he has spoken about, Mr. Rouire, the case which is currently before the court. I have explained this many times to the member, that as Attorney General my comments must be made in court. My comments must be made at that time, and comments made outside of that process may, in fact, endanger the case going forward. So the member often taunts, goes ahead and says things which I believe are very, very close to the line of contempt and would like a response, and when he does not get that response now and he has to wait for court, he is always angry, he is always frustrated and he says I will not tell him.
Well, the process is clear. I believe most citizens understand that process, the process being that I cannot speak about a case which is before the court unless we are in court addressing the specific facts of the case. I believe for the people of Manitoba, one of the worse things that could happen is for me to speak about any case which is before the court which may ruin that case's chances of going forward. Then, I believe, as Attorney General I would have not acted fairly, and that would then become a problem.
The member opposite has quite a lot of freedom, as do members of the opposition, to simply say things. There is not much accountability, you know, on that side of the House. You can say pretty much whatever you want, and you can hope to say something which will cause a member on this side to have a specific difficulty, such as a case not being able to go forward. It has simply not been my practice to fall into that trap. In any of the cases that he has tried to bring forward, he has gone to outrageous and scandalous lengths, bringing parents here, carrying on in the hall, carrying on in the House, and yet he knows very well, he knows very well--I believe he knows or he should know--that I am unable to speak about that.
So, in answering his question, I am not able to speak about the specific case that he has brought forward, and I believe I have explained again why not.
Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps some day the minister will consider the question of how information about TA policy generally, or even Mr. Rouire's TA, goes to his guilt or innocence.
I ask the minister on general temporary absence policy, is it not her understanding that it is policy that temporary absences are restricted to a maximum of 15 days which are renewable for further terms of 15 days to a maximum of 90 days?
Mrs. Vodrey: To the best of my knowledge, and again Corrections is not here, and the Estimates seem to be becoming an examination of Corrections specifically, to my knowledge the temporary absence at this time is 15 days. It is renewable, but renewable to a maximum of 90 days, I will have to check the exact details of that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain why temporary absences would then be granted for terms in excess of 15 days?
Mrs. Vodrey: If that did occur, then I would want to have Corrections here to answer to those calculations, and if the member believes that he has examples which were done outside of the regulations, then I hope that he will bring them forward, because it was my knowledge and my information, and assurance given to me, assurance given to me that practices were well within our regulations.
Now, if and when there may have been exceptions--and the member may have an example of that, I do not know. He has not said he does, but, if he does, I will be happy to look into it, because, if there has been an exception, if there has, then I would expect that there would be an answer, and I would seek that answer for him. So I have to say to him again, if he has a question which is in the public interest, where he believes he has information, where he thinks something may not have been followed through, then please give it to me, and I will be happy to look into it. I have made that clear throughout the whole of Estimates. That has been my position as minister.
The public does that. If they are worried about something, they phone me. They ask me to look into issues, and I do. If the member opposite has that concern, then I am happy to do that also for him.
Mr. Mackintosh: This was the question that I posed to the minister yesterday. It is our information, and I cannot confirm or deny it--it is within her bailiwick to confirm or deny it--but we understand from the RCMP who were involved with Mr. Rouire that Mr. Rouire's temporary absence pass was for a period from April 25 or 26, no, I think it was April 26 to May 24, a period in excess of 15 days, which is contrary to our understanding of policy.
So I ask, how is it that at least in this case of Mr. Rouire and how many others--I do not know. I am not suggesting there are others, but the question has to be asked. These are questions. How is that at least in one case it is our understanding, and I invite her to correct it if it is wrong, from a reliable source, that is, the RCMP, Sergeant Hawkins that the TA pass of Mr. Rouire was to May 24?
* (1120)
Mrs. Vodrey: I have made it clear that I am not able to speak about Mr. Rouire. Where these questions will be asked perhaps may occur in court, at which time answers will be able to be given in court, and details will be able to be provided. It is always very tempting to make a promise that I, outside of the court process, will be the one to provide that information to the member outside of court, but I cannot make that promise because that would, in fact, be a problem.
So I do not believe that I am able to answer his question specifically on Mr. Rouire, however, as I have said, we have a policy in this government of how temporary absences should be administered. If there are cases that were administered outside of that policy, then I want to know about it because I had been told, I had been given assurances, of certain information that those policies were adhered to. Now I will endeavour to find out if there were any people given temporary absences for longer than the 15 days. It is my understanding that it is 15 days, but, as I said, I will check with Corrections when they are here. Where there may have been exceptions, and I am not able to tell the member today that there are--I cannot confirm that until Corrections is here--then certainly we will be seeking an explanation too, absolutely. I think that that is important.
I do not believe that this is an area where we cannot co-operate. In fact, I think we should co-operate. So I will have taken note of the questions asked, and when I have Corrections here, these questions will be passed on to them, and I will attempt to answer these questions when Corrections is here. But it is important that they are here and I go back to my concerns that I spoke about earlier this morning around answering questions regarding Corrections division without them here.
There has been a great deal of wrong information which has been put forward from many sources, many sources. There have been unnamed anonymous sources. Well, I can correct one source in terms of how many hours people worked in the institution, how many hours inmates worked in the institution. Then I saw that there was incorrect information given by an anonymous source today in the newspaper, you know, no attempt to check on it, just write it out like it is fact and say that it happened, that it was wrong.
So I make a great deal of effort to correct the wrong information that comes from anonymous sources. In this case, I believe this is a genuine question that the member is asking, and it is my understanding he has posed it not as an allegation but as a question. It may be an allegation, but I am saying that in this case I will look into if, in fact, Corrections has any information that is different than the original information which I was given. If that information is different than the original information I was given, we will expect an explanation about why that may have been the case and that is exactly what I will look into and expect to be able to answer when Corrections is here. If they are not able to answer it then, I will provide it to the member as quickly as I can.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who went in after the riot and gave us the appearance of being in control of the situation, either confirm or deny whether she was aware of a decision to grant temporary absences generally in excess of 15 days?
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly on the day of the riot and the day following the riot the goal was to bring the institution back under control to make sure that inmates were housed in secure situations, that public safety was what was looked after. That was the goal. I have been informed that the rules and the criteria were followed. Now, if there is any information now in the time following as we review and review and review, which is what we are doing, continuing to review those on temporary absences, behaviour of people on temporary absences, where there is any information which may be to the contrary, then I will certainly want to know about it, look into it and expect to have an explanation.
I would also just remind the member that this is an area that I have specifically asked Mr. Hughes to look at because I think it is important to have a third party, make a comment on this issue and to make a comment that nothing was done unlawfully, that reasonable measures were taken and that that will be included in the report. As I said at the time of the referral, there is a clause in Mr. Hughes's mandate which allows him to look at many other things, or other things which he believes are important, but I believe that, considering some of the public debate which I believe has arisen because of, in some cases, what have been referred to as anonymous sources or unnamed sources, there has been some debate certainly within this House. I think in that case, in the public interest, it is important to clarify, so I have asked for that independent third party to also review this issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would say thank goodness for those anonymous sources, Mr. Chair, which have helped spur some movement towards the community understanding the truth in this matter. Now there are three issues that I see following the riot and the release of the inmates. One is whether the criteria used to assess release is based on common sense. The second is the issue of the contradictions of the minister and her veracity. The third level, the highest threshold of concern, is legalities. So, when the minister asks Mr. Hughes to look at legalities, we are getting into very, very serious issues here which implicate the minister, there is no doubt, as the person accountable for what took place.
Beyond the issue of this 15-day temporary absence policy and whether that was applied or not--and I do not know, as I say--is the issue of granting temporary absence passes to individuals who have reached probation, particularly in their current term. It is my understanding that this temporary absence policy--that violation of any form of conditional release during the current term will normally preclude any form of conditional release for the remainder of the current term. Only makes sense; it is a good policy; there has to be some consequences for breaching probation orders. I look at the case of Mr. Rouire. From the information I have, and I hope that this is his complete record now, it appears that he breached every recognizance order that was directed against him, including the one stemming from the August 8, '95 conviction. So on March 4, he was convicted of failure to comply with recognizance in his current term.
I ask how it is, if normal procedures were applied, how Mr. Rouire could possibly have been released on temporary absence when the policy states otherwise, as I understand it. I may not understand the policy, and if so, I ask the minister to correct it. I may not have all the facts on Mr. Rouire's sentencing, and I ask the minister if she could address that. That does not go to his guilt or innocence on the charges that he is facing.
* (1130)
Mrs. Vodrey: The member, I believe, is trying again to get me to comment. It may not appear in his mind that these comments in any way interfere with what may be put before the court, which might be in the public's mind, but on the best advice that I can receive, on my own knowledge of my position as Attorney General, on the integrity of my position, I just cannot comment. The member always makes it enticing to want to comment. There are many times that it would be, I think, wonderful for me if I could, but I am the one who holds the office; I am the one who took the oath, and I am the one who is responsible to see that these cases are brought forward to the court, and that is exactly what I will do.
I am extremely, extremely careful in my role as Attorney General. In my role as Attorney General, it is not a political one. My work as Minister of Justice when I answer for other political decisions and policies, that is well within the realm of what I can speak about. In my role as Attorney General, I have limits. I am not then able to deal with decision making in a political arena. That is the important distinction of the role of Attorney General. I think in my cases it is not a well-understood distinction that the Attorney General does not take political advice, does not discuss cases in a political arena, but that is the fact of the role, and it is an important one. I continue to hold fast to carrying out my role as Attorney General in that very ethical style.
If the member opposite does not like it, I believe that the media has begun to understand the very special role of Attorney General, and I believe many of the public understand it, though people do want to have information and yet they also want the case to go forward to court. The member very often makes it tempting to wish I could reply in a political arena, but I can tell him as Attorney General, I can not. As Attorney General, I reply in court.
Mr. Mackintosh: On the first part of the question, can the minister confirm or deny or in any way tell me whether my understanding of correctional policy is correct, that one in breach of a conditional order and the current term will normally preclude any form of conditional release?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member asks for a strict interpretation as was interpreted by Corrections, I would prefer to wait until the Corrections line so that I can have advice on that matter.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if we could just break for three minutes, if I can just run out and back.
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed at 11:34 a.m.
__________
After Recess
The committee resumed at 11:44 a.m.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Mackintosh: What consultations did the minister have with her staff immediately following the outbreak of the riot at Headingley in terms of the release, whether by TA or by what she calls end-of-sentence release, and what decisions followed from those consultations?
Mrs. Vodrey: My focus immediately following the riot was the securing of the institution. That was the focus of my discussions with my staff also, and also to ensure that other institutions which were housing inmates were, in fact, secure. I was wanting to make sure that additional staff were necessary, were available and had been deployed to those institutions. I wanted to make sure that there was security within the institution and dealt with the institutions because what we did not want to have was any further difficulties within the institutions occurring. So that was the focus of my discussion.
Decisions were made by professional correctional officers. I did not intervene in terms of the placement of inmates, in terms of which institutions they were placed in or whether or not they were released on temporary absence. Those decisions again were made by Corrections. I did not intervene in the placement of inmates at the federal institution, nor in Saskatchewan.
My overall goal and overriding concern was for public safety and security and that inmates who were required to be within institutions were transferred to those institutions and that those institutions were secure. That was the focus of my discussion with Corrections.
Mr. Mackintosh: Again, very specifically, what decisions was the minister involved in regarding the release of inmates, given the immediate pressures put on the correctional system in Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: I did not intervene in that decision-making process. That decision-making process was made by Corrections in their assessment of placement of inmates or granting of temporary absence. I have told the honourable member that I have been informed that those decisions were made according to our government's policy and criterion. That is the best information which has come forward to me, and that is the assurance that I have been given by Corrections on an ongoing basis.
So, if there is any further concern about that, then I would certainly be very interested in any specifics, and I have also told the member that there is ongoing review and assessment of inmates who are out on temporary absence, review of their behaviour and performance, supervision in terms of making sure that conditions are not being breached.
Again, there is policy in that area, and it is my expectation that that policy is to be carried out. I have been told that it is being carried out, and, again, if there is any information to the contrary in the form of allegations or sources that the member has, that he thinks would be helpful to the public safety of Manitobans, then I would most certainly like to know. That is a position I have taken on all matters, as I have said earlier, on all matters. When someone has information that affects the public safety of Manitobans and there is something that I as minister can direct to increase that public safety, then I am very interested in looking at being able to do that.
* (1150)
I have found, however, that sometimes allegations are made which are not correct and which, when I am able to find out the accurate facts, I am able to set the person's mind at ease or the public's mind at ease about what the true facts are. However, there are times when certainly, if there is something I can act upon, I would make every effort to act.
The one area that I am not able to speak about acting in is when a case is before the court. That is one where I then assume my Attorney General role specifically, and that case is prepared for prosecution. We make sure that that case then will go forward in the best interests of Manitobans.
Mr. Mackintosh: Getting back to my simple question, the minister said she did not intervene in any staffing decisions. I want to know what decisions she approved about the release, whether temporarily or otherwise, of inmates following the riot from Headingley.
Mrs. Vodrey: I have answered that question. I have made it clear. You know, one day I heard the member on the radio, and he tried to say that I signed the temporary absence forms. I heard him, and I heard the radio announcer astutely say to him, come on, the minister does not sign those. Well, anyway--I mean, he has tried to make all kinds of allegations. I have made it clear that--[interjection] Well, I mean, you know, listen to the tape. He said it on the air, and I happened to have heard him in the interview.
So I make it clear to him again, the Minister of Justice does not sign the temporary absence forms. The decisions are made by professional correctional officers. I do not intervene in the decision-making. My role as minister is to set the policy. That policy has been set by this government, and now it is the responsibility of professional correctional officers to carry out that assessment, and that is what is being done.
I have not intervened in any specific case. However, what I am interested in and certainly express concern with is that the issue around temporary absence was raised as a concern publicly. I made it clear to Corrections that I wanted to make sure that all cases were reviewed, and Corrections told me at the time that, in fact, that review was already ongoing, that that review, though I had ordered it on a specific day, I was told that, in fact, that review, though they would be responsive to my direction, was already a part of the process. They were already doing that and, to my knowledge, are continuing to do that.
Now, when Corrections is here and we are dealing with the Corrections line, I believe that we will be able to perhaps give more information, where possible, to the member, but I believe I have answered his questions. I do not sign the temporary absence form, and the practice is carried out by professional correctional officers.
Mr. Mackintosh: I still have not got an answer to my simple question about what decisions the minister approved as to the release of inmates temporarily or otherwise following the Headingley riot. Would she just give us an answer to that.
Mrs. Vodrey: This is now the third time that I have answered the question, which I believe is understandable to most people. The answer is that I do not intervene and I do not make direct decisions on the release of inmates. I did not participate in the direct decision making for release of inmates, and as I have said from the very beginning, those decisions were made by professional correctional officers. They were made, I have been told--I have been informed and I have been assured that they were made in line with this government's policies.
Now, I have also said if there is some concern or question about that, and the member has an example, please give it to me. I have also taken the step to say, let us have Mr. Hughes review the steps taken at this time to make sure that the steps taken were reasonable, not unlawful, and that is the information that I have and the information that I have asked to be reviewed.
I have made it clear. I do not sign those forms. I do not participate in the direct decision making of release of inmates, and, in fact, if I did, I think he would probably be the first one to claim that there was some political interference, that there was some reason that I was saying yes or no, so it is, I believe, more reasonable to say that government set the policy and that the practice is carried out by professional correctional officers.
Mr. Mackintosh: Indeed, it was the policy decisions by this minister which are of interest to this side. We want to know what policy decisions she had approved regarding the release temporarily or otherwise of inmates from Headingley. If the minister will not answer that, I ask her, what policy decisions was she advised of that were being applied to the release of inmates to deal with the pressure on the correctional system following the riot?
Mrs. Vodrey: The policies regarding release according to temporary absence were made by this government, were put in place, to my memory, the date was February 19, 1995. My question to Corrections is now and has always been, were our policies followed, were our policies put into practice? The assurance that I have received is yes, that our policies were in fact those which were practised during the release of inmates. That is the information and the assurance that I have received from Corrections certainly to this point. If the member has reason to doubt that that happened, then he should say.
There was a question from the other side about, was there any change in policy and, no, not directed by this government, no, there was not. The policy that I am told that was used was the policy that was in place by this government. I am struggling to understand how I may not have provided the member with the information he requires because that is the information which was given to me with assurance, which I have been providing back to this House. If there is reason to have doubt of that information, the member should bring forward his reasons for doubt but, to assure the public and everyone, then, I have Mr. Hughes to review that.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 12 noon, this House is now recessed until 1 p.m.
The committee recessed at 12 p.m.
________
After Recess
The committee resumed at 1 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson: Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. We are on Resolution 4.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I just want to preface my question, Mr. Chairperson, with the fact that in no way will my question or questions in any way, shape or form refer to the Rouire situation or case, and that any questions that I ask exclude any reference to that particular individual and that particular case and the circumstances surrounding that individual. I just want to preface my comments with that for the minister.
I want to ask the minister, during the course of her preceding responses to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) before the break, she indicated two things--and if I am incorrect, I would appreciate if the minister could correct me--firstly, that policies had been put in place, I believe the minister referenced February '95 concerning temporary absence releases and that she queried her staff and officials as to whether or not those policies have been followed. Is that a correct assumption?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am very pleased to hear that the member for Kildonan (Mr Chomiak) will not be referring to a case which is currently before the courts, because I am hoping his understanding from his former career as a lawyer will provide him with the background that I am not able to speak about it. As I am sure he has heard as he has listened to the process of Estimates and questions in Question Period, there have been a number of attempts to require me to speak about that case. I have explained that as Attorney General I believe that there are, very significantly, limits on any comments that I make and, in fact, that I cannot make comments about a case which is currently before the courts, a case which has been referred to by members opposite, or any other case.
As Attorney General, that is sometimes hard because there is always the temptation to want to speak about those things, but recognize that I cannot. It is a simple matter for the opposition to be able to do so, not a matter at all in which--
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: I am just looking for your direction, Mr. Chairperson. I indicated as a preface to my comments that I would not be referring to a case, and I asked a specific question of the minister, and now the minister is referring to that particular case in the course of her comments, and I wonder what relevance that has to do with the question as posed to the minister.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts, and I would advise the honourable members that points of order are to be raised when there is a concern over a break in the rules within the Chamber, not just for disputes over the facts or if you agree or disagree with comments being made.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her statement, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member perhaps could regard my comments as a preface also then, because he has not been the questioner specifically around this matter, and I think it is important to clarify for him and for others who may need that clarification, in some cases again and again, as to whether or not I am able to speak about a specific case.
He tells me he does not want to speak about that case, and I look forward to that kind of co-operation from the members opposite. I have not seen it yet. In fact, several members opposite have continued to raise issues regarding a specific case before the court. So this will be a pleasure if, in fact, there is a member whose questioning does not raise that.
The member then asked me to clarify or to state again what interaction I had with my Corrections staff regarding the criterion for release, and I believe that that is the question that the member asked, and, as I said earlier before the break, the policies were put in place by this government. I believe the date was February 1995, and it is those policies which I have questioned senior officials, were these policies the ones that were applied, because it was my expectation that those were the policies to have been applied, and to this date, the assurances that I have received from my correctional staff are that, yes, the policies that are in place were the ones that were applied during the release of any inmates.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister specifically indicate when she asked her officials when those policies were put in place, specifically when she made the query of her departmental officials as to whether or not those policies met with provincial guidelines as referenced back to February '95?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have indicated, my first concern has always been for the public safety of Manitobans. That was the issue which we dealt with at the time of the riot, and what I was told at that time was that inmates were assessed and that we were dealing with placement of inmates within the institutions and we were looking at the safety and security of all people concerned.
I believe that the first time I asked the specific question around, were policies followed, because it is my expectation that they are followed--it is the expectation--was when the issue was raised about whether there was a concern about the following: Was there any relaxation of our policies about the time that one of the inmates who was released on temporary absence faced a murder charge? At that point I sought assurance on behalf of the people of Manitoba that our policies had, in fact, been followed, and it was about that date. That is to the best of my recollection, it was about that date that I did receive assurance that these were the policies that were followed and that, in fact, I was told that they were.
* (1310)
Mr. Chomiak: Is the minister saying that at no time prior to her determining or hearing about a difficulty concerning a particular case, her officials--is the minister saying her officials did not come to her at any time prior to that and say, these are the options we are pursuing with respect to the release or the relocation or the procedures dealing with inmates? Is the minister saying, until that issue was raised following the incident that the minister referred to, her officials never came to her and presented her with either a final decision with respect to those or options with respect to those?
Mrs. Vodrey: These judgments are exercised on a daily basis by Corrections and that is the process of Corrections. To my knowledge I did not have Corrections come to me and present me with a series of options of what would occur or should occur. I deal directly with senior staff and senior staff did not raise this issue. I will check the recollection of minds who were also there, but it is our collective memory that this was not raised as a series of options to us at that time.
These are methods, these are mechanisms which are in place and are exercised daily, as I have said, by correctional officers. Questioning has occurred from the member for St. Johns as to whether or not I had a direct involvement in any of the decision making around the release of inmates and I have replied several times that I do not have that direct involvement, I do not sign the temporary absences, I do not have the direct involvement in the risk assessment. My role as minister is to set the policy. Correctional officers follow a practice and, as I have said before, if the member opposite, if the member for Kildonan has any information which suggests that that practice was not followed by correctional officers, then I would ask him to inform me. I would ask him to inform me so that there can be any correction which may be required. If he does not, then perhaps he should say that, too, because I can tell him that I do not have direct involvement. In fact, Mr. Chair, if I did have that direct involvement, the question from the member for Kildonan will be, how is it that I have the expertise to make that decision? How is it that I as Minister of Justice suddenly become the expert in the risk assessment, a different kind of expert or perhaps a better expert than professional correctional officers?
So the answer is no. I do not claim that expertise, and I do not intervene regarding individual cases. However, it is my expectation that the criterion is adhered to, that the rules established are the ones that are followed. If there is any change in that, and he has information on that, then I would challenge him to bring it forward and let it be corrected, because our goal remains public safety.
Mr. Chair, as I have said in the House this morning, I would say again and have said before, there is ongoing assessment of individuals who are out on temporary absences. That assessment is ongoing. There have been some individuals who have been returned to the institutions. People are released with conditions, and we do not want to have those conditions breached. So if the member has any further information on, not just how prisoners were released, but, if in fact there was a breach of conditions after their release, then I would like him to bring that forward too.
Where he has any information which might be important to the public safety of Manitobans, I challenge him to bring it forward, because that is the way we do find out. If people breach conditions, we have to know. We find out through our own methods of supervision. There may be citizens who have information that want to tell us further information, and I look forward to that. That will certainly be forwarded on to Corrections so that Corrections can then take the steps that are required in terms of investigation or perhaps having that person returned to the institution.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister has indicated that she made no queries of her officials regarding release or absences of prisoners until she heard about a situation occurring, after this event had occurred. She said that the issue of releases was not raised as a series of options. Was, at any time, the minister presented with a plan by departmental officials, by Corrections officials or by anyone associated with the department or with the jail concerning how prisoners would be dealt with following the riot?
Mrs. Vodrey: The issues that were discussed between the senior officials of Corrections and myself and the deputy minister were that some inmates would be moved to other institutions across the province. I did not have any direct involvement in saying who should go where. That assessment of who should go to institutions such as Brandon, which is a higher security institution, was made by the officials--who would go to Dauphin; who would go to The Pas. Those decisions were made by correctional officials, and what was brought forward to me was that we would have inmates placed at other institutions; that we would have inmates placed at Stony Mountain, and that we would enter into an agreement with Saskatchewan to accept some of our inmates.
Some inmates for placement in federal institutions did require a direction or a signature which was provided by the deputy minister so that placement could take place. So in the interests of public safety of Manitobans, I was informed that prisoners would be placed in other institutions, some of which would be placed in a federal institution, some of which would be placed with an agreement with Saskatchewan.
Mr. Chomiak: Is the minister saying, during the course of this discussion or other discussions, at no time was the minister apprised of the fact that some prisoners would be released on temporary absence or some other forms of release? Is the minister saying that topic, that issue was never discussed?
Mrs. Vodrey: To the best of my knowledge and recollection, that option was not discussed with me, Mr. Chair.
* (1320)
Mr. Chomiak: Was it discussed with a deputy minister or other senior officials from the minister's department whom the minister is directly responsible for?
Mrs. Vodrey: The deputy minister informs me that some reference was made to him regarding temporary absences, and that was made in the context of discussion of overall placement of inmates across the province.
Mr. Chomiak: I remind the minister that is why, when I originally placed my question, I asked about options being presented regarding placement of prisoners, and the minister has now confirmed that a discussion did take place concerning placement of prisoners with the deputy minister and temporary absences. Can the minister outline for me what the extent of that discussion was and what the involvement was of the deputy minister in that decision?
Mrs. Vodrey: My recollection--first of all, the member's question was any involvement that I had, so I have explained to him that was not raised to me. His question now: Was the deputy minister? And I confirmed that, when he asked that question, the deputy minister has now just informed me that this was raised to him, and it was raised in this context, simply that there--just let me check and confirm that I have got exactly the information given to him--were that some inmates would be going to other institutions, Brandon, Dauphin, Stony, for example, and that some would receive temporary absences. I am informed by the deputy that that was the extent of the discussion with the deputy minister by senior correctional officials in terms of their responsibility to ensure that inmates were placed in the appropriate settings.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, so I now see we have to change our line of questioning to say, was the minister or the deputy minister informed of particular instances? So I will do that accordingly.
Was the deputy minister at any time advised, other than discussion that was referenced in the minister's preceding answer, did at any time it come to the attention of the deputy minister that prisoners were going to be released on TAs, that policy was going to be reviewed concerning the release of those prisoners on TAs, or did he question at any time the policy approach concerning the release of prisoners on TAs?
Mrs. Vodrey: The deputy minister informs me that there was a brief reference to temporary absences at the time of the riot and that was all. There was not a further discussion regarding policy; there was not a further discussion regarding any other details.
Now, the member seems to be having trouble saying, well, should I ask you if you were there or the deputy was there or who was there. That is an important part of the question. That is important for you to be specific about, because the question is, you have asked did I have knowledge, did others have knowledge, and I am attempting to answer your question. Now, I do not think that is too much trouble. He indicates that it is some difficulty, he is going to have to think about it, but I am sure he will be able to think about it and frame his questions appropriately, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Chairperson, it is important because there is a concept of incompetence and there is a concept of wilful blindness. It is my contention that the minister is either very incompetent in the handling of her duties or she is suffering from a case of wilful blindness, in which case she shuts her eyes to the facts and utilizes her staff to shield her from the information. That is my belief.
So my difficulty in phrasing the questions is I was trying to phrase them in a manner to elicit information on behalf of the public, but I am afraid I have had to outline to the minister the basis of my thinking concerning this because the minister chooses to treat this matter with a cavalier attitude which I think is inappropriate concerning the circumstances of this situation and the subsequent events that occurred, particularly in light of the fact that this minister stormed down to the jail which I thought was inappropriate and I referenced in my speech yesterday, and inappropriately decided to take charge of the situation and decided to, for whatever reason, perhaps political, as was suggested on the radio this morning, take advantage of the situation. I hope that was not the case but it certainly was suggested, and by virtue of saying that she was in charge, took on her shoulders the responsibility of dealing with this issue.
Since there has been, subsequently to this event, a series of terrible misfortune, terrible mishaps and terrible errors, the minister cannot hide from her responsibility in this regard. She cannot shield herself from responsibility by saying, oh, it was not me, it was my officials, which the minister continues to do in this House during Question Period and now during the course of this Estimates debate, and now says, well, you have to ask specifically whether it was me or whether it was the deputy minister.
I only return to my initial point, that it is either the concept of responsibility the minister ought to adopt on her shoulders or wilful blindness. It is one or the other and in both cases I think it is inappropriate for this minister to not accept responsibility or conversely to be wilfully blind to the facts and to shield herself in order to protect her political fortunes.
Is the minister therefore saying that except for the one conversation with the deputy minister that occurred around Headingley that she referenced two or three occasions, is the minister saying, that is the only reference that she or the deputy minister or senior officials had concerning the TA policy until the minister or the deputy minister or senior officials heard about the case that occurred that we are not supposed to refer to but that the minister referred to in her comments being brought to her attention?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, let us talk about political actions for a start. Let us talk about the political actions of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) who, on the day of the riot, against the advice of police, went right out and spoke publicly. Let us talk about political actions and political grandstanding against the best advice during the negotiation of a riot. Let us talk about who took the riot seriously, Mr. Chair, and let us make it clear, it was never the member for St. Johns, ever.
The member for St. Johns attended in my office a meeting with senior RCMP. At that time negotiations were going on to end the riot. It was the intention of all concerned to have that riot end without an escape, without any storming of the institution by emergency response teams and, through a negotiated end to the riot, obviously the best ending in all circumstances.
Yet we have the political, blatant political actions of the member for St. Johns that the people of Manitoba will never forget, because they know who put the lives of RCMP officers on the line, the lives of correctional officers on the line and the lives of prisoners on the line, and it is absolutely scandalous. One would say that from the time he was in my office, every time he appeared before the media and on the media after that time to politically grandstand, he put someone at risk because, at that point, let us talk about wilful blindness. At that point he was fully informed about his actions--fully informed--and, with that full information, still chose to go forward in front of the media and to speak out politically about information that was wrong, wrong information, speculating, fuelling concerns of individuals and talk about wilful blindness when there was a direct piece of information given to him by the senior RCMP officer in this province.
* (1330)
There was an effect of that behaviour, of the behaviour of the member for St. Johns, that not only was felt within the institution, because there was an effect of people saying, oh, there is an idea, and there was an effect on the families of RCMP officers, of correctional officers, of other police officers who attended at the scene and also of families of inmates, who then began to wonder, is this going to affect the person that I love? Is this going to inflame the situation so that the people that I care about have to storm into that institution to bring an end to something that the member for St. Johns had a full part in wanting to inflame.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I had a little trouble saying that because I was shocked that the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) was clapping when I stood up to raise a point of order, but having said that, I think the allegation made by the minister is inappropriate and to attribute that kind of motivation--I listened earlier and I debated whether I should stand up when the minister said that the member politically grandstands, but to indicate that the minister inflamed the situation and deliberately affected and put people's lives in danger I think is totally inappropriate and attributes--it is not the kind of motives that any member of this House should attribute to other members of this Legislature.
I think it is totally inappropriate to indicate that a member of this House would deliberately inflame the situation, deliberately put people's lives at risk. I know the minister is saying from her desk that he did, but I would ask you to call her to order, that it is inappropriate for an honourable member to attribute those kinds of motives and those kinds of actions to any member of this Chamber.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am going to take this matter under advisement and get back to the House at a later date on it.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude her statement.
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member the effect of such appearances. The effect of such appearances was hundreds of phone calls into the lines which we had set up for families to phone to find out what exactly had happened and what was the state of the person that they loved and cared about, so there was an undeniable effect of failing to take the advice and appearing before the media.
So let us just, you know, talk about wilful blindness from the other side. Let us talk about political actions from the other side. Let us talk about a cavalier attitude from the other side.
Now, Mr. Chair, the member also in his comments made reference to something he called terrible errors. He makes an allegation of terrible errors as he got into full flight in his speech, and I would say to him, if he has evidence of terrible errors, which is what he said, that perhaps he would like to put those on the record and attribute them to where he believes the terrible errors came from, because there have been a lot of allegations made, a lot of allegations made, and I have been attempting to correct those allegations over the past few days and to make it clear to the people of Manitoba what, in fact, happened.
So is he alleging, and I believe he is, that terrible errors were made by correctional officers, terrible errors made by correctional officers--let us hear him say it on the record. Let us hear him make those allegations that he is couching in whatever language. If that is his allegation, go ahead and make it on the record.
Mr. Chomiak: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I will not make allegations about terrible errors of Corrections officials. I will make a statement that the minister has made some terrible errors in the undertaking of her duties, and I do not think the minister should shirk her responsibilities by continually trying to pass off those responsibilities to her officials. She was sworn in as the Minister of Justice. She ought to do the honourable thing and take that responsibility and follow the British parliamentary system. If she recognized her responsibility and would follow the British parliamentary system, she would adopt the course of action that I have suggested yesterday she ought to follow.
If there were no errors, I suppose our critic would have it wrong, the public would have it wrong, the media would have it wrong. The only person that apparently would have it right would be the minister who continually stands up in Question Period, attempts to answer questions and says she is going to check with her officials. Yet why did the minister have to give Mr. Hughes an additional item to review if there was nothing to review--and in fact his mandate ought to be broader, but that is a separate issue.
I take great offence to the comments made concerning the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) who was doing his duty as an elected official under the circumstances, but to return to my question, Mr. Chairperson--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member not to refer to something that I have taken under advisement. If we stay away from that track, I think we will get further ahead today.
Mr. Chomiak: The minister did not answer my question, and my question was, was the reference, the brief reference to TAs that was made during the course of the riot or just subsequent to the riot, to the deputy minister, the only reference to TAs made to either her, her officials, her deputy minister, senior officials, before she requested confirmation whether practices had been followed, when she was informed about an incident or incidents that occurred subsequent to the release of an inmate or inmates that the minister does not want to refer to, yet referred to in her answer?
(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said and as I have answered questions in the House, I have been very careful to say, where I did not have the information at my fingertips, that I will find out. Now I should not be surprised, but I am surprised that the member across the way has a problem with that. I find it difficult to say, well, you know, what would he prefer. Would he prefer careless language used as is used by the opposition regularly, careless language and careless facts thrown out, or is the right thing to do, in the public interest, to say I will take that and find out?
I think it is more important to the people of Manitoba not to be careless in terms of the things said and more important to find out the facts, and that is exactly what I have undertaken to do. Now if the member has a great difficulty in an answer which says, well, I will find out about it, then I think everybody on this side of the House should know.
* (1340)
We have members from the other side who are yelling not only from their seats but from the floor they are sitting on, so I would ask you to bring the committee to order. I would ask you to bring the committee to order with members calling from across the way. Mr. Chair, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) sitting on the back row floor has been calling out. The decorum that we have been dealing with in this Chamber, under your guidance, has been members have the opportunity to speak when they have the microphone.
So I was talking about the fact that I undertake to get information when required, and that I believe on this side of the House we see that as a responsible way not to put forward careless answers, not to throw out careless facts, but instead to bring forward important information. That is exactly what I undertake to do. I believe that practice is in the interests of Manitobans.
The question also was raised then, well, why would I send it to Hughes if I maintain that everything was done right? What I have said is that I have had assurances from Corrections that they have, in fact, followed the policies of this government. However, there has been raised within this Chamber some public debate, some debate within this Chamber about that matter. Since we want to make sure that this is answered in its fullness, then, Mr. Chair, the matter has been referred specifically to Mr. Hughes so that he can also make a comment on it, and our view on this side is, if there were problems, if in fact that assurance was not totally correct, then I would like to know about that. So that this does not happen again. I, at the moment, do not have information, do not have anything to suggest that the assurances I have been given were wrong, though I have said that we are reviewing all matters as well within our department, and Mr. Hughes will review those, too. I think that deals with the issues which the member across the way raised.
Mr. Chomiak: For the third time I will pose the question to the minister who has a problem with questions but does not ask questions of her department officials apparently. Mr. Chairperson, let me pose it for the third time. The minister indicated that the only reference to TAs made to her or her departmental officials, senior officials, or the deputy minister was the one conversation during or subsequent to the riot, and that she never had any information brought forward to her until an incident occurred that we are not suppose to refer to, at which time she then asks for review whether or not the policies were followed. Can the minister indicate whether any of her senior officials include the deputy minister at any time, other than the brief conversation she referenced earlier, dealt in any way with Corrections officials about the issue of TAs, either to be apprised of the situation or to make a decision with respect to the TAs?
The minister says she has not made any decisions, she has made that very clear, that she wants no part of it. Can the minister outline the answer to that question: any of officials, senior officials, deputy minister, at any time other than the brief conversation that she referenced with between the deputy minister and Corrections officials, at any time had made any references to TAs, release options, et cetera?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said this afternoon, and as I said earlier this morning, and I will make clear again for the member. First of all the issues which I dealt with immediately following the riot was the safety and security issues, dealt with information brought to me regarding placement of inmates at institutions around the province. I have made it clear that I did not determine which institution inmates would be placed in, that that determination was made by correctional officers. The member seems to think that that is somehow stepping away from things. He somehow thinks that that is not right, but I guarantee you that if I happen to go in and say, oh no, this inmate should go here, and I am going to assess that this inmate should go there, that he would jump right in and call it political interference, that he would just jump right in and say that I was trying to take over the job of professional correctional officers who make these decisions on a daily basis. The point that I am making to him is that I do not do that. I do not step in and try and take over the role of correctional officers, that they are the ones who have the skill and ability to make these decisions, and that what I dealt with was the fact that I was given assurance of placement of inmates.
I also explained that the discussion regarding temporary absences did not come to me. That discussion was held in a brief reference with the deputy minister, and in saying so I made it clear that the granting of temporary absences is done on a regular basis by correctional officers. It is done on a regular basis. They are the ones who assess and they are the ones who do this. So, as I have explained, the deputy minister has informed me that there was a brief reference to temporary absences when senior Corrections officials came to him and spoke about placement, and there was not a series of options brought to me as minister regarding temporary absences.
Mr. Chomiak: So the minister can correct me if I am wrong, I can conclude from her statements that the only reference to temporary absences that occurred before, during, or in the week or days subsequent to the riot, with regard to temporary absences, was a brief discussion that took place between the deputy minister and Corrections officials. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said now for the fourth time, yes, that is correct, that that issue of options-- [interjection] I beg your pardon?
An Honourable Member: That is not for the fourth time.
Mrs. Vodrey: Okay, well, maybe it is not for the fourth time. Is it for the third or the fifth?
And that I have said clearly my role has been in the reporting of correctional officers to me that inmates were placed in institutions around the province, that we had correctional officers in place to deal with the movement of inmates across the province, and Mr. Chair, that the reference to temporary absences occurred to the deputy minister and options were not brought to me. Now I do believe I have said that at least three times.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate what the conversation was between the deputy minister and Corrections officials concerning TAs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Now I have said this before. There might be some opportunity or some reason the question is being asked again, however, and so I will answer again. I put it on Hansard before, and I am happy to do it again: that the reference was made--and this may be for the benefit of others as well, I am not sure--in a reporting by senior correctional officials to the deputy minister that individuals were being moved to institutions across the province to the federal institution, to Saskatchewan, and that some inmates were being reviewed for temporary absence. That is the information the deputy minister has now told me several times this afternoon, that that was the context of the information of temporary absences.
Mr. Chomiak: So the minister is saying that neither she nor the deputy minister nor senior officials in her department outside of the Corrections officials that supposedly made all these decisions, made no reference whatsoever to any numbers, any type, any numbers of prisoners, or any type of prisoners that were going to be moved on temporary absences. No mention was made of any numbers.
Mrs. Vodrey: The deputy minister informs me that to the best of his knowledge, neither he nor other senior officials in other divisions were informed about numbers of temporary absences.
* (1350)
An Honourable Member: Start believing it now?
Mrs. Vodrey: I beg your pardon?
An Honourable Member: Do not believe it.
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, Mr. Chair, the member for St. Johns now says that he does not believe this, so I would be interested if he could give me some information that would then say that I am incorrect. I have answered these questions with the recollection of the deputy minister who was present with me during briefings from senior correctional officials. That is to the best of our knowledge. Now, if there is something which in the past while I do not remember, then I would appreciate it if he would put that on the record because, as I have said, this has been a very, very busy and extraordinary four weeks. This has been an incredibly busy four weeks since the phone call came approximately four weeks ago, beginning on the Thursday evening through the Friday, that there was a riot at Headingley.
We dealt with that issue. When that issue was dealt with and the institution was back under our control, yes, I did attend at the jail, yes, I did go out there, I did go to look at the damage and to be informed and to receive directly information from RCMP officers, to speak to senior correctional officials and guards who were there.
It was shortly after that in our efforts to settle inmates across the province and to deal with that matter that we then had what I will refer to as a job action--that may not be the most correct term for it--in which case we had to bring the RCMP back in to deal with the jails because there were some outstanding issues according to the guards, outstanding issues of a range of issues which are well known to the public, safety and security issues which we were dealing with in Corrections, bargaining unit issues which were being dealt with by Labour. There were a number of issues. Following that, we had a very difficult situation in terms of a murder which was committed in our province, and we have been dealing with that.
So the past few weeks, Mr. Chair, have been quite extraordinary in terms of the volume of issues which have come forward in the correctional area. I am providing information to the best of my knowledge and memory and, if the member has anything further that he can add, he only has to tell me and I will do my best to look into it.
Mr. Chomiak: I find it very difficult to conceive of the fact that following the riot and the decisions made regarding placement of prisoners and decisions regarding TAs and decisions regarding that that information was not provided to the minister or the deputy minister. The minister is saying, no, it was not provided, concerning the disposition of 321 prisoners who are under the responsibility of the minister, but she was not told and her deputy minister was not told what was happening. Oh, she was told that some were being moved here, some were moved there, and they were told, oh, some would be put out on temporary absences, but was not told what the criteria were, was not told how many were going to be put out, was not told that information because the minister said she was given no numbers.
I find it very hard to believe that the minister was not told that information, that the deputy minister was not told that information, and, if in fact you were not told, it goes precisely to my point raised previously about wilful blindness. Then surely you ought to have asked the questions if you were not told.
Mrs. Vodrey: The example of wilful blindness, there is no such better example than the member from St. Johns and his behaviour on the day of the riot, so let us talk about wilful blindness and a wilful act. The member laughs. Well, I will tell you, the hundreds of phone calls we had into our family lines were not laughing.
Point of Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, I was just admonished by the previous chairperson that I ought not to refer to that matter because he was taking under advisement the scurrilous remarks made by the Attorney General, so I would appreciate if the Justice minister would refrain from commenting about those particular instances since the previous chairperson has taken those comments of the minister under advisement.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The member does have point of order, and it is being taken under advisement.
* * *
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): I would ask the minister to please proceed.
Mrs. Vodrey: Recognizing the sensitivity of members opposite, and I would also say for the member for St. Johns who called from his seat, I believe he should, if he has the courage, put that on the record, but that is exactly what we find, is that it does not go on the record or it goes on the record as an anonymous source.
Now, Mr. Chair, as I explained, the issues of the last few weeks have been extremely busy. The days have been extremely long and the responsibility extremely heavy for the Corrections staff, for all of the staff of Justice who are attempting to assist, to make sure that the correct decisions are made and that the information is provided to the public in an honest and truthful way and not in the form of allegations and not in the form of, sort of, unnamed source ideas.
So the deputy minister and I had only the moments of Estimates to jointly recollect, but it is our recollection from both of us that that is the way issues were dealt with. As I have said, it is a regular matter that inmates are released on temporary absence according to the criterion and policy set by this government, and that occurs on a regular basis by correctional officers.
I had no indication and still have no indication that correctional officers in any way breached that criterion or breached that policy. As I have said to members opposite, if they have some reason to think that that did happen, then they should say, but certainly the information, the assurance that I have asked for since this matter has been raised here as an issue of concern within the House, I have asked for the assurances: Was there any change or loosening of criteria? To this date, I have received information that the usual criteria were followed. If the usual criteria were being followed, then they did not bring the matter to my attention, because they were not doing anything which was outside of the policies of this government or outside of the realm of what their usual practice and ability to put into practice policies is.
So, to my recollection, to the recollection of the deputy minister, these options were not raised to us except, as I said, to the deputy minister in a conversation which senior correctional officers had with him when they said to him in a general statement about inmates being moved to institutions around this province and being moved to the federal institution, being moved to Saskatchewan, and some inmates being released on temporary absence. So the member can attempt to call the practice of Corrections in issuing temporary absences wilful blindness, but that is, in fact, the normal practice, and he seems to have some view that it was different than normal practice.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
Well, I can tell you, certainly if the criteria were to be changed, then by all means I certainly should know, but the assurances I have are that that has not been the case--and the deputy minister, who I see is reflecting back through his notes to make sure that this has not been overlooked in any way, we come to the same conclusion. Members can attempt to characterize it in many ways, but I can say that the issue of behaviour which I believe should be called into question is the behaviour that took place on the day of the riot by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).
* (1400)
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to deal with an important issue of the minister's proclaiming to the world that the inmates were going to repair the institution, and, by golly, they were going to start within days. The minister, I believe, made that statement on the day following, or two days following the riot. Would the minister tell this committee whether she had, by that time, contacted the insurance adjuster responsible for co-ordinating the repair before she made that statement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I did make the statements that we expected and wanted inmates to assist in the cleanup of Headingley jail and the restoration of Headingley jail. That is exactly what the intention was. No, I did not have direct contact with the insurance adjuster, and, as the member knows, the Minister for Government Services (Mr. Pallister), who actually owns and manages the building, is the department that deals with that area. However, it certainly was my intention then and is my intention now that the people of Manitoba should not be paying for work which can be done by inmates to restore that institution, and that there must be accountability in terms of the restoration of that institution, that that must be done by inmate work, because it has always been our policy that inmates should work a full day and, as I said at the time, that now there certainly appears to be work for the inmates to do to restore their living conditions.
So I did make that statement. Inmates are, in fact, working. I believe that they are doing work which may save the taxpayer money, and they are doing work which, I believe, brings accountability to the restoration of the place where they live, because, Mr. Chair, if you have something happen in your home, you have to fix it up. You have to make it liveable for yourself and your family again, and it is our view that inmates must be required to do this also.
Now, it seems not to have met quite the criterion of members opposite or perhaps some members of the media who have minimized the efforts to bring inmates into the restoration process, but I think that to minimize is just totally wrong because you can minimize anything. What happens when your children do something, Mr. Chair? You can minimize whatever efforts that you make to have them become accountable.
In fact, I suppose if you continue to minimize everything you did, you would not do anything, and that is what we have from members across the way. We have members across the way who just would not do anything. We have this government which is making every effort to make inmates accountable within a safe and secure system dealing with concerns of correctional officers and yet attending to the fact that there must be accountability.
Mr. Mackintosh: Since the minister said that she indeed expected inmates to restore Headingley on the basis of accountability--it is like when children do something to make a mess, they have to clean it up, I think, was her analogy--would she explain how she can supplant the role of the courts in deciding who should be accountable for the wrongdoings at Headingley the day of the riot, how is it that she can supplant the role of a judge in deciding who is guilty, who was an instigator of the riot?
Mrs. Vodrey: There was no effort to supplant the role of the courts. We recognize that the police were doing an investigation, that charges may, in fact, be laid against some individuals, and certainly respect that process. I think the people of Manitoba expect that that process will also continue.
So there, in fact, may be some inmates who will not be returned to Headingley because they may, in fact, face other charges, or they may, in fact, be deemed not to be of a risk level to be returned to Headingley.
However, the point was the members across the way, or the member in his question is trying to point to a specific blaming exercise, and what I stressed from the beginning was a measure of accountability, that it must be inmates who provide at least some of the work for the restoration in the place that they live.
Mr. Chair, that is exactly what is happening. There is no effort to remove the role of the courts. There is no effort to change the role of the courts or, in fact, in any way, to change the role of the RCMP in their investigation of who did what and whether or not there may be charges laid. In fact, we are very supportive of that and expect that that process will continue.
The member, though, seems to have a problem with it. It is just like him, to have a problem with it. He would prefer to do nothing. That is basically the whole issue, you know. I really would rather do nothing than do something that I should do that might bring accountability. So, Mr. Chair, I answer again that I do not in any way suggest that this takes the place and role of the courts.
Mr. Mackintosh: Again, it is our position, this is just another facade. This is, as I have said, the ultimate con game in the sense that these inmates are being asked to do three functions we understand. This is information received from the insurance adjusters: No. 1 is dust cleaning, No. 2 is painting and No. 3 is furniture repair, all three of which are functions regularly carried on by the inmates at Headingley Correctional Institution, whether it is by the paint crew or whether it is by ManCor or whether it is the daily cleaning crew.
So the minister is trying to make something. She is talking about minimizing on this side. She is doing more than maximizing. She is trying to cover up for a statement made that she cannot follow up. I ask this minister, who did she consult before she made the statement about the inmates cleaning up the institution? If she did not consult the insurance adjuster, did she consult any counsel or any official in her department?
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, may I direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have with us from Versatech Industries, 10 of the people who are here today visiting, and they are from the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here today.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: See the member across the way does not think that dust cleaning is very important. [interjection] Oh, and neither does the member from Transcona. You know you get got lots of things, you know, we have heard lots of things from the other side. We have heard that some jobs are McJobs, and we have heard that dust cleaning does not count. We always hear from across the way that whatever is there they do not like it, that job is not worth it, that job is not good enough. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) hears that all the time. So on this side of the House we are used to hearing their comments that some jobs just are not worth anything. The people doing them, however, think that it is important, the people who receive the benefit, whether it is in Headingley jail or whether somebody comes to your house and does it or whether it is done in an office or whether you do it yourself. You have to do it; somebody has to do it. It is still important work. Now you do not seem to think so and it is just typical of the other side that they would minimize.
The skills required to do some of the work--the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) spoke about that yesterday--and these are skills, this is an area where inmates can, in fact, do work and whether or not the member thinks that furniture repair is an important skill to have, well, you know, it just might be an important skill when you are living in your own home and you are living outside the institution.
I do not know how many times that members in this Chamber have had to do furniture repair; we sure do in our house and I sure do, too. I think that for people to have the ability not to say, gee, if this is broken I am just going to throw it away, but that, in fact, there is something you can do to fix it. That is a very important skill. Members opposite do not seem to think so. There view is, well, do not worry about that. In their view, somebody else will pay for it. Maybe the insurance company will pay for it, maybe somebody else will pay for it, so I do not have to think about that.
* (1410)
Well, Mr. Chair, that is not the view on this side of the House, and our view is that inmates need to accept some accountability for the cleanup. Now these three tasks, I understand, were arrived at through negotiations which took part on behalf of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), Corrections and the insurance person, the insurance agency. There was a list of tasks outlined and agreed upon where safety was considered, where skills were considered. Now members across the way say, well, that agreement does not account, they should not have done anything by way of agreement.
The point is, they are just mad because inmates are in there working. They are just mad about that, they are just mad. Because what have we heard from them? We have heard day after day, even in the labour, and I hesitate, I look to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) that I am actually using the right words in terms of saying a job action by the guards--well, you know, they sort of forget about that and, even in that they are saying, well, you know, gee, why are the inmates not in there working? But we really do not want them in there working, but it would be good if we said that they are not, so we can say that it did happen. Now that it is happening, they are saying, oh, gee, now you have taken that one away from us, you have really gone and done what you said you would do, so now what do we have to complain about? Now we are going to complain about the jobs that they are doing. We are going to say that that is just not good enough.
It is amazing. We have hit a soft spot. They have dwelt on this, and I dare to speculate, this could have been the point of the member for St. Johns' (Mr. Mackintosh) talk earlier this afternoon. They are just sick that this is in fact being done, that a promise was made and a promise was kept. They are in there working so, Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see that.
In terms of the consultation, before that comment was made, it was done in consultation with the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Corrections, and I believe also the Executive Director of Adult Corrections. So we held a very strong belief in the accountability. Frankly, Mr. Chair, they are just mad because it happened.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is so important when the Minister of Justice in particular makes a statement about consequences that the statement be well founded and that there is follow-through. Otherwise it just denigrates not only her office, which she is only occupying very temporarily and I would think for only a short period of time more, and the administration of justice in the province. When you say something is going to happen, it better well happen.
Is it her intention that the victims of the riot also be accountable for that riot and involved in the cleanup?
Mrs. Vodrey: My comments were that inmates would restore the institution, that inmates would be accountable. I fully understand--perhaps the members opposite do not--that some inmates who may in fact be charged will likely not return to the institution, that some of the individuals who were victims will not return to that institution. I am fully aware of that. My statement is that inmates must be made accountable, that it must be inmate labour that restores the institution and contributes to the restoration of that institution, and that is, in fact, what is happening.
So, Mr. Chair, members across the way do not like it. I see some anonymous people in the media do not seem to like it or anonymous people who report to the media that they do not like it, but in our view it is important. Members always have a problem when we follow through on a promise, and we follow through on our promises, this government, all the time. They always have a big problem when that happens.
I think back on the number of times that the member has tried to say something does not happen and even blatantly when it is sitting right there in front of him and it is happening and it is formed and it is active, he goes and calls press conferences, oh, this did not happen. Then people come and we say, well, gee, here is what is happening, this is what is going on. So the member really has difficulty with accountability himself and, in fact, being able to see what is happening.
So, in answer to his question, the inmates are performing some jobs which are commensurate with their skills, and these have been arrived at.[interjection] Now, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) does not have the courage to put his comments on the record. He thinks he knows the numbers, and the numbers that he screams across the House, Mr. Chair, are wrong, wrong. You know, it is really interesting how he is minimizing the work. He thinks it is really funny. He talks about pink feather dusters. He will not put that on the record himself. I guess that is how he sees it. I guess he just could not be bothered to do that himself. You are just unbelievable.
Anyway, Mr. Chair, he does not think it is important. He chooses to continue to minimize it. We do not on this side of the House. There are inmates engaged in the work. There are more inmates today than there were yesterday. There is a plan to involve inmates in the restoration.
Mr. Mackintosh: I suggest at some point when the minister does no longer have the burdens of office on her mind, which I suggest will be shortly, that she will reflect that she has confused the important issue of dealing with inmate idleness and the important issue of implementing overdue restitution programming in this province with some statement that she could not deliver on.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member across the way should certainly know about idleness and inmate idleness when his party was in government because there was not a program of work. It was this government which moved to rigorous confinement. It was this government which as they moved to rigorous confinement made it clear that the inmates would be working a full day.
That has been exactly what we have been working towards, and I know the member across the way, his party did not do that when they were in government. They missed their chance and now they are frustrated that this government has made it a policy to do so.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I have not been here for the entire Estimates process in Justice, so I may cover some ground that has already been covered. I had to attend a powwow for the new community constable in the Lord Selkirk development. It was an interesting experience. Eight years ago, I became the community constable in the Lord Selkirk development, and at that time community policing was just being developed. It is interesting how many of my colleagues who gave me the hardest time are now the ones doing the community policing and singing its praises.
Today in Lord Selkirk, R.B. Russell School put on a powwow for the community constable. When I started eight years ago and I walked into R.B. Russell High School, I was asked by the principal not to come in anymore because the kids might be frightened and stay away from the school. So it shows how things have changed.
I apologize if I re-cover some ground that has already been discussed in my absence, but I will--seeing as the line of questioning is in regard to the riot at Headingley, I have some questions in regard to that.
* (1420)
Prior to the end, the conclusion of the riot, had there been discussions with the minister, the deputy ministers and other people from Corrections about contingency plans to what would be done with the prisoners after the riot? Was this discussed before the conclusion of the riot? Were there discussions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Though there was an agreement earlier in the day not to talk specifically about cases, yes, we have been discussing some of the arrangements that were made. To the best of our knowledge, as the member knows, we are not at the Corrections line yet, but we have been attempting to discuss to the best information possible.
In reference to the member's question, the information that I have been putting on the record is this: While the riot was on, we were concerned about bringing that riot to a conclusion and found it very important, in the interest of public safety, to support whatever requests were required to bring that to a successful conclusion. As the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) knows, there were no escapes, the riot came to a negotiated end, and we believe that in that time we satisfied that requirement.
Senior Corrections officials, and Corrections officials to my knowledge in the institution, were in fact dealing with a plan of what to do with inmates following. We did not know what we were going to find inside until we were able to go in. We did not know what the damage was in total. We did not know what the condition of some inmates who had not come out was. So all of that had to be dealt with. Then Corrections officials then determined, based on their assessment, where inmates would be placed when they were removed from Headingley. That decision was done by senior Corrections officials. It did not involve myself as minister, in that no options were brought to me about where people should go or what should happen, and it involved the deputy minister in only one instance in a small way which I will describe.
However, it is my knowledge that what then came to me as information was that inmates would be placed in institutions across the province, but I was not informed as to who would go to which institutions, nor was my approval sought. Obviously inmates were assessed, and Brandon Correctional Institution is a more secure institution. Certain inmates went there. There was a requirement of a signature for inmates to go to Stony Mountain, the federal correctional institution. That was provided by the deputy minister, and I was also informed that some inmates would be going to Saskatchewan. I agreed that we needed to contact other provinces for space, and negotiations were begun at the officials level with Saskatchewan. To my knowledge there was no paper required to be signed, certainly not by me nor by the deputy minister, to allow that placement to occur.
In terms of temporary absences, options regarding temporary absences were not brought to me as minister. Temporary absences are decided upon on a regular basis by correctional officers, and that is a regular part of their work. So options were not brought to me. The deputy minister informs me that in a general conversation that he had with a senior Corrections official, the only reference made was this: that in the context of inmates going to other correctional institutions such as Dauphin, Brandon, Stony Mountain and Saskatchewan, he was informed in the general picture that some inmates would receive temporary absences. Nothing further, I am told--he has checked his notes to date that he has with him--was sought from him or given to him as information.
Mr. Kowalski: Were there any other provinces, other than Saskatchewan, that offered their assistance as far as housing prisoners? During the riot or after the riot, did Alberta or Ontario, did any other provinces, approach this province and offer assistance?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed by the deputy minister that there were some--this is to the best of my knowledge; again, Corrections is not here--preliminary discussions with Ontario, but they did not progress, there was no further discussion and that it was basically inmates who were moved from the western side of the province. Those inmates moved from the western side of the province were moved to Saskatchewan.
Mr. Kowalski: The minister said that--she used the word “we.” Sometimes it is hard for me to differentiate, when she refers to the word “we,” who she is referring to, if she means our department, or she means myself and the deputy minister or who. She has used the word “we” in reference to finding out about that there would be a requirement to send some of the inmates to Saskatchewan. When was she first informed of that and by whom?
Mrs. Vodrey: The deputy minister is looking through his notes at the moment to find out if he has a dated day as to which day we were informed that inmates were to move to Saskatchewan. He tells me that his notes indicate April 29. In looking at that day, for us, I can rely on the date. The actual day of the week, I cannot tell you because, at the time of the riot, as you are well aware, we just simply met daily. It did not matter what day it was. That happened over the course of several weeks, involving not only the riot but the job action or disturbance, which also happened, which required us to meet virtually every day of the week--that us, meaning me included me as minister, deputy minister and officials. I can tell you, officials worked very long hours. When the approval was sought, however, or the information given and, yes, you support this, it was given immediately.
Having now consulted a calendar, we find that it was Monday the 29th to the best of our recollection and notes.
Mr. Kowalski: Would there be standing agreements or would it be an ad hoc agreement as far as costs that would be charged between Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the housing of inmates from Manitoba? What would be the arrangements in regard to those costs?
Mrs. Vodrey: The information that we have is our very preliminary discussion information, so I regret, I am not able without Corrections officials here to explain to the member what standing agreements, if any, may be in place or what the cost arrangements for those standing agreements, if any, or ad hoc agreements might be.
I will make it clear to him that when I met with the Saskatchewan minister in Ottawa, I expressed the gratitude of the people of Manitoba for his willingness, the willingness of his correctional staff and Corrections department to deal with the situation in Manitoba. I can certainly tell you that ministers across this country who I met in roughly the week and a half following the riot certainly were very interested in what had happened in Manitoba, very supportive of the difficult issue which took place and which we had all just lived through in our province.
* (1430)
Mr. Kowalski: Yes, and I am starting to realize that most of these questions probably would be a lot better asked once people from Corrections are here, but I will ask one more that possibly the minister might have knowledge of. In regards to numbers, was there a ceiling as to the number of prisoners, inmates that Saskatchewan could receive? Was there a limitation? The one question I know the minister could answer is, was there any direction given to Corrections as far as a ceiling as far as costs, the number of inmates that the department would authorize transfer to another province?
Mrs. Vodrey: In our early discussions we spoke about a number--the deputy minister spoke about a number with senior correctional officials in the range of 25 inmates. He tells me that at that time there was not a ceiling placed on the number, that it was simply those considered best to be placed in that other institution.
The cost issue we were not sure at that time if, in fact, it might be recoverable through insurance. I would have to have Corrections officials here to give the member an updated answer on that.
Mr. Kowalski: Because I think it gets to the crux of, and I will be very straightforward with what the official opposition has come forward with, is criticism of the TAs and the releases of some prisoners that I guess the suggestion is that it was a way of managing the number of prisoners, but if I understand the minister correctly, what she is saying is that through the co-operation of Saskatchewan she could have put as many prisoners there so there was no need to assign any inmates to TAs or early release, there was no pressure put on Corrections, there were no monetary pressures, so there would have been absolutely no motive whatsoever for releasing people early on TAs or early releases as inmate management because they could have gone to Saskatchewan. Am I understanding the minister correctly?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the deputy minister informs me, again, the discussion was no ceiling placed, certainly on our side. Now what the capacities may be, of course, is an issue for another province. But I can tell you that--well, again, I want to be very careful--temporary absences as the member knows are granted on a regular basis through Corrections and there is a criterion in place. What I want to make sure, as all citizens want to make sure, is that I have been given an assurance that the criterion was not relaxed, but if there is any question about that, then I want to know.
As the member also knows very well, temporary absences can allow the recall of an inmate for any breach, can have an inmate recalled. As I have explained during the course of the day, there has been an ongoing review of those inmates who were released on temporary absences and some had been brought back. So we now want to consider exactly what happened with inmates who have been brought back for whatever. Some of the breaches of temporary absences may be things such as a person having been drinking when they were told to stay away from intoxicants.
It is not as if we have ever said the matter was totally over, they are out there and they are gone, they are there and they are wherever they are. That is not the case. There were arrangements made at the time. There is review of inmates who received temporary absences ongoing. Some of those inmates have in fact reached an early release date or reached their legal release date, statutory release date, so it is a fluctuating issue of numbers on a daily basis because some people become eligible, some people reach the end. That is why the matter has been so complex for Corrections to deal with, because it is not a static group of individuals or a static number or a static eligibility in any way. I know the member's experience will help him understand the context of the remarks that I am making.
Mr. Kowalski: I appreciate the answer, but the main crux of the question was that there were other options. If that was the motive, just to manage the number of inmates--and I am giving the minister a gift here in the fact that the insinuation has been that there was a motivation to release prisoners because they somehow had to handle the numbers. What I am asking from the minister is confirmation that if there was a problem, she could have put more prisoners in Saskatchewan, she could have negotiated with other provinces, that there were other options. So in fact there was no motive to release any inmates prematurely. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mrs. Vodrey: I appreciate the member's question in terms of the fact that there was no ceiling placed on where inmates may go and, to our knowledge, to my knowledge certainly, that the cost of that was not the issue in our consideration. We looked at Stony and we looked at other provinces and we looked at our own capacity.
There was no question, however, and I have said this from the very beginning, that there was a pressure, there was a pressure of space. Those were the exact words that I have used continually and, in looking at that, the correctional officers, I am informed, made an assessment of certain individuals, and it was their decision, and I am not trying to suggest that, you know, I should have been there to do it because I do not think I should have been there to do that. I am not a professional correctional officer. There were some decisions made to release inmates on temporary absences. There were some decisions made to send individuals to the federal penitentiary. There was some decision made to send inmates to another province, but those decisions had to be made by the correctional officers who were in charge of the situation, and I am doing my best to answer the member's questions. I do not have correctional staff here.
I think the most important facts are, I said from the beginning, this was a time of space pressure. Decisions were made, and we looked at all of our options--sorry, they looked at all of the options. I was not involved in that decision making. The decision making was made by professional correctional officers, and it was their decision that some individuals were eligible for temporary absences.
* (1440)
Mr. Kowalski: When the minister invited myself and Her Majesty's official opposition critic for Justice to a meeting with herself and the commissioner from the RCMP and the deputy minister, one of the things that I mentioned at that time was a practice in federal penitentiaries about when once inmates are returned to the facility, quite often there are a number of reports filed of allegations by prisoners of guards taking retribution, physical retribution against them, of guards feeling that inmates are being more aggressive and assertive, so in federal institutions after such an incident they have citizen volunteer overseers that would go into such a facility. At the time I made a suggestion that after the riot was over a similar program might be necessary in Headingley.
Has the minister looked at that or discussed that with any of her staff, looked at having some group go in there when inmates are returned there to make sure there are not any conflicts that result from the riot between guards and inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do remember the member raising this issue and I can tell him that as of yet, no, we have not had the opportunity to do that. It is not that it is not a good idea. The reality is that in the past four weeks we have had the riot, we have had a job action. We have had another matter around an inmate who has been charged with a murder, and we have been very aggressively reviewing all of our inmates, any of whom were out on temporary absence.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
That happened before I even requested that. I had requested that there be a review when we became aware that one inmate who was on a temporary absence--out now--faces a charge that is before the courts. But Corrections tells me that they have been aggressively reviewing inmates even before that time.
So at the moment we are still in the process of restoring the institution, because we need that to happen, inmates working in the institution, managing our other institutions to be sure that things are working in those institutions, monitoring individuals who may be out in the community. However, I would expect because I do see the point that I will have a discussion with my correctional officials when we are back to what would be almost regular business. If the member wants to raise this with me again, I mean, it may occur at a time that we are not in the House, then I think you should. I will do my best to follow through, but certainly leave it open to you raising it with me at another time as well.
Mr. Kowalski: Well, it is bright and sunny outside, and we are coming to the conclusion of today's Estimates. Maybe we will change the subject from Headingley just for a little while, so we leave the Chambers in maybe a better frame of mind.
I was looking at the organizational charge for the Department of Justice last year's and this year's, and it differs slightly in the way that it is drawn out. I am just wondering if it is just the way of graphing or if, in fact, there has been some change in reporting responsibilities? In this year's organizational chart, it shows that the Executive Director of Administration of Finance, Mr. Sinnott, is reporting to the Assistant Deputy A.G., wherein last year it had Mr. Sinnot, according to last year's organizational chart, reporting to the Deputy Attorney General Bruce MacFarlane. Is that a change in reporting?
Mrs. Vodrey: I just would ask the member if he could check the date of the chart that he is referring to. We think he might be looking actually at 1994 and not 1995. The actual change did occur in--we are wondering if it is the annual report perhaps which actually reflects the work of 1994. The change took place in 1995. The reason the change took place in 1995--I will just draw the member's attention to the actual title of Mr. Perozzo. He is associate deputy and he is not assistant deputy. Associate deputy is a different classification. He is in charge of the overall administration. He took that position, or was promoted into that position, in 1995 and has since that time then taken responsibility for that part of the department.
Mr. Kowalski: Just to bring me up to date, Stu Whitley and Bruce Miller, who are their replacements now?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are very pleased that Mr. Allan Fineblit has taken the place of Assistant Deputy Minister, Prosecutions, and in Mr. Bruce Miller's place who was director of Winnipeg Prosecutions, we have Mr. Rob Finlayson acting in that capacity, and there will be a competition for that particular position.
Mr. Kowalski: For that competition, will there be advertisements just within the civil service, or will it go across Canada? Where will you be advertising for that position?
Mrs. Vodrey: To the best of our knowledge, that competition will be Canada-wide, but if I find that there is any change in that, then I will make sure I report it at the next sitting of Estimates.
Mr. Kowalski: On the organizational chart, are there any changes that have been made since the last Estimates process as far as the organization of the Department of Justice? I was reading last year's Estimates, and there were comments about a number of changes in recent years to what prior had been a very stable bureaucracy. A number of people had been there for a long period of time.
Are there any major changes since last year's Estimates as far as the organization of the Department of Justice?
Mrs. Vodrey: There have been two changes since last year. First of all, the Public Trustee has become a special operating agency, and then property rights which is Land Titles and Personal Property Registry has moved to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because it has been seen as regulatory, and in my opening remarks I commented on that change as it left the Department of Justice and moved to Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
* (1450)
Mr. Kowalski: I am going to ask some questions with regard to where I will be asking in Estimates, what lines for certain things with regard to--I forget the name of the advisory group she has that advises youth justice committees. I have a number of questions with regard to the mandate of that group, the number of meetings, any minutes of meetings.
Where would be the best place in Estimates to ask questions with regard to that, or does the minister have the information available now?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the best line to examine that Provincial Advisory Committee is in Community Corrections; that is line 4.(d).
Mr. Kowalski: Yes, and also I will be asking some questions about what are called unloading stations. Because the Winnipeg Police Service has recently moved to automatic handguns in order to make them safe. When they are put into storage, it is required that an unloading station is used. Now in all the city police service buildings here in Winnipeg, they have unloading stations; but in the Remand Centre, in Headingley and other provincial institutions there are no such stations. I understand there has been some discussion between the city in regard to this. But now that the RCMP are moving towards automatic handguns, this looks like it will be a requirement for all police officers to have unloading stations so that they will be able to escort prisoners into custody areas. Where would be the appropriate place to raise the question in regard to this matter?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the best line to deal with that is in 4.(b) in Adult Corrections.
Mr. Kowalski: In last year's Estimates, the official opposition critic had a number of questions in regard to the Crown attorneys assigned to the infant death inquiry at the Health Sciences Centre. On reflection, what was the total amount of time that--I believe it was Don Slough, who from Youth Court, was assigned as the Crown counsel--what was the number of months that he was away from his duties in regard to being the Crown attorney in charge of youth prosecutions?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed the best line for details on Mr. Slough's assignment to the cardiac inquest would be on 2.(a) when Prosecutions is here and will be able to give the member details.
Mr. Kowalski: Last year when we were discussing this line in Estimates, there were a number of questions raised in regard to the evening court for Youth Court. Has there ever been a document released as far as a study done on the success or failure of that project, or has there ever been a document created that the minister could share with the opposition?
Mrs. Vodrey: We did operate night court on a pilot basis, and that was an effort of this government to allow for an opportunity for young people to be accompanied by their families through the court process, and also as another opportunity of when court would be available.
However, I can tell the member that the results of that pilot project did not provide us with the success that we had hoped in order to continue. There appeared to be some reluctance on a number of fronts for the use of the court, and so at that point a decision was taken that that pilot project then simply should, at the end of its time, at the end of the term that the time that was decided that we would look at it, that then we would not continue with it. So that is the result. There has not been a public document produced in terms of that.
I did have the opportunity to meet with the chief judge. I am aware that our Legal Aid system participated very fully, but I understand that some other members of the bar were not finding it useful. So at that point it was discontinued, at the end of its pilot.
Mr. Kowalski: Although there was not a public document, I imagine the minister received a written report from someone. Would she be willing to share that with the opposition, so we could see the concerns expressed by the person who wrote the report about why it did not work, and any suggestions that were made as far as how it could work, what changes could be made, or is this the end of the project forever?
Mrs. Vodrey: The information that I received was preliminary in nature, in terms of its reporting, and it was information to the deputy minister and to myself. So I will, at the time, attempt to provide some of that information to the member if he would find it helpful, and we do have some ideas of other possibilities. I want to be careful about how much I say publicly since it does involve working with other groups to receive their support in order to provide other venues or options, particularly for youth court, and that is what we were talking about.
So I am hesitant to say too much on that side publicly, and on the other side, there is not a whole lot more to say than I have already said. Some groups were simply not interested in using it, and you need the lawyers to be willing to come forward to participate, and so at that point that is the information that I have.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The hour being three o'clock, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Radcliffe): The hour being after 5:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.