JUSTICE
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Mike Radcliffe): 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.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chair, just to follow up on some business, I have some information to table.
First of all, to the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), I would like to table the answer to a question taken in last year's Estimates undertaken to be given back, given this year; and also for the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), my undertakings from last year; also for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), undertakings from last year; and also for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). I am pleased to table those, to provide those, on the record to the members. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I just wondered if, and I am not sure whether this is something that I would ask on the record or whether it should be done otherwise, but wondering if the member would like to proceed through Prosecutions and then go to Corrections or what he would like to do. I have made the offer today, earlier in Question Period, that I am prepared to move to Corrections, if that is the member's will. I am not sure in what order he might like to do that, and the critic from the Liberal Party, so I would ask your advice on that.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): If the minister is prepared to go to Corrections, at this point now, on the agreement that we will then return to item 4.(2)(a) Public Prosecutions and up to Corrections on the completion of Corrections, then we certainly would support that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I am actually doing this at the request of the member who had been anxious to move ahead to Corrections, and I am able to accommodate that with staff this afternoon, if that would be helpful, so that would be fine.
I just have one further answer that I agreed to yesterday. I took on notice and agreed to bring back to the House today, and I would like to provide that information now. There was a question yesterday regarding the employment of Mr. Larry Krocker, who was formerly the superintendent at Headingley Correctional Institution, and I undertook to find out exactly what his position is at the moment.
Subsequent to the riot at Headingley Correctional Institution, Mr. Krocker requested that he be relieved of his duties. The department agreed to Mr. Krocker's request. He is currently working on a temporary basis within Corrections Division performing the following duties, I am informed by the department: compiling background information and documentation for Mr. Hughes's review and, secondly, preparing a report that has been requested by Mr. Hughes on management's perspective on the operation of Headingley Correctional Institution. I am also informed that further placement options are actively being pursued between Corrections Division and the Civil Service Commission. I believe that covers the issues I undertook for today.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): It has been moved by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that debate during this committee shall move--
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am sorry, I did have two other items which I agreed to bring back to the House today and, if the member wishes, I could speak about those items now.
Mr. Mackintosh: Sure.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there was also a question yesterday regarding aboriginal representation in the Department of Justice by division according to the main appropriation. I can tell the member the number of aboriginal employees in the Administration line, 4.1, is three; in Public Prosecutions is five; in Justice, line 4.3, is 12; in Corrections, 4.4, is 105; and in Courts, 4.5, the number is 40, for a departmental total of 165. That is the information that I received. It was compiled as of April 3, 1996, by the department.
Also, there was a question about some of the work that is being done by Policy and Planning. I am told that on a routine basis preparation of executive management committee agenda, record of decisions, tracking of departmental multidivision initiatives, ministerial and deputy ministerial briefing books for the federal-provincial meetings, one of which we have just attended, liaison with the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics, including co-ordinating review of about 35 centre publications reviewed annually and then assisting in analyzing that information when it comes to Manitoba. Policy and Planning also sits on a number of committees.
As I said yesterday, the Family division case management project statistical analysis is part of the evaluation subcommittee in addition to the steering committee. They also took a lead in our development of our parental responsibility legislation. They also sit on a committee for Bill C-41 implementation. They sit on victims' rights review committee; sit on committee for review of the Law Reform Commission report on professions and occupations, in fact, chair that committee; committee on integrated response to street gang; and a federal-provincial working group reporting to the Centre for Justice statistics on developing meaningful statistical measures of costs of the justice system, and Manitoba is the chair of that; and a pilot educational program for parents who have separated. They are initially gathering materials and evaluations of pilot projects elsewhere and are now on the steering committee.
Now, I believe, Mr. Chair, that does clear up the issues that were outstanding from yesterday.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Is there leave of the committee to set aside Resolutions 4.2 and 4.3 and deal with Resolution 4.4? [agreed]
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: Are we in that line now?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): We are in that line now.
Will the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to take the opportunity to introduce the representatives of Corrections Division who are here this afternoon: the Assistant Deputy Minister of Corrections, Mr. Ben Thiessen; the Executive Director of Adult Corrections, Mr. Jim Wolfe; and the Executive Director of Winnipeg Courts, who is on assignment with Corrections at the moment, Mr. Greg Graceffo. Those are the staff people who are here today.
Mr. Chair, because there have been a number of questions and a number of issues raised, I have a statement which I would like to begin by presenting to introduce the area of Corrections.
I would like to provide an update on the use of temporary absences during and after the riot at Headingley. During the past week and a half or so, Corrections staff has conducted a review which has examined the circumstances in which decisions were made as well as the rationale for the decisions themselves. The review will continue until the Headingley Correctional Institution is reopened.
I start by stating the obvious. A riot took place at the Headingley Correctional Institution on the 26th of April. It took 24 hours to bring that situation under control. A number of correctional officers were injured, an even larger number of inmates were injured during the riot. As the RCMP and correctional authorities regained control of the institution, there was an immediate need to place approximately 300 inmates throughout the correctional system in Manitoba.
Virtually all inmates except those in one annex to the institution had to be removed and transported elsewhere. Some were taken to hospital and held in custody there; some were taken to Stony Mountain Penitentiary; some were taken to Dauphin; some were taken to Portage; some were taken to Brandon; and, in fact, some were taken out of the province thanks to the co-operation of the Province of Saskatchewan
Yesterday, Mr. Chair, I received an update from correctional staff. Their information describes the inmates granted temporary absences for the entire adult provincial correctional system from the date of the riot, April 26, until May 21, 1996. They examine temporary absences that occurred during and after the riot, whether connected to the riot or not. The effects of the riot were felt system-wide, and their advice reflects that reality.
Temporary absences with conditions are tools used by institutional superintendents to set expectations for the inmates' behaviour in the community and to allow for proper management of the sentences in their community. Conditions imposed upon inmates must be respected if the inmate does not want the temporary absence privilege cancelled. Conditions are specific, and they are unique to the requirements of each case. Conditions could include such things as not driving, agreeing to random urinalysis and abstaining from all intoxicants.
I would like to stress one thing. Because of their nature, the number of temporary absences given in a correctional facility fluctuates daily, even hourly. During the course of any given day, inmates return from temporary absence and others will start theirs. In the past, I have referred to the number of temporary absences at a specific point in time which was based on information then available from my department. However, because of the fact that the numbers change so quickly, any figure that I could give you for today would almost certainly not be valid tomorrow. Things change that quickly.
With those thoughts in mind, Mr. Chair, I would like to describe the most recent information that I have available to me at the moment from the department. As I mentioned before, it covers the period from the date of the riot until Friday last. The figures I am about to give you describe the situation concerning temporary absences during that four-week period, information received from the department. To be absolutely clear and accurate, I should add that these figures do not concern inmates serving weekend sentences.
Mr. Chair, since the day of the riot until May 21, 172 temporary absences have been issued to inmates. Less than one-half were given at the time of the riot. The balance of the inmates were issued absences after the riot. Some inmates were given more than one temporary absence for a variety of reasons at differing points during the four-week period. The number of inmates that were issued temporary absences is therefore somewhat less than 172. During the course of this four-week period, 80 of the inmates in question have completed their sentences, so the temporary absences have lapsed in those cases. During this four-week period, the temporary absence situation has been monitored and reviewed by correctional staff on an ongoing basis. Where conditions of release were breached, the temporary absence has been cancelled, and the inmate has been returned to custody.
Similarly, risk assessments have been reviewed to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised through the temporary release process. I think it is important just to repeat that, in case there is any question, risk assessments have been reviewed to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised through the temporary release process. Where there was any doubt as to the appropriateness of an original temporary release, the release has been cancelled. As a result of this process, nine of the original 172 temporary absences or the number of persons released on temporary absence, had their privileges cancelled. Three of those nine occurred as a result of a review I instructed shortly after the riot. Six have been cancelled over the past several days as a result of the review.
I would like to make a few comments on the circumstances in which these types of decisions had to be made at the time of the riot and shortly afterwards. It will be readily apparent to all that decisions concerning temporary absences had to be taken in very difficult circumstances. A riot was taking place. I am not prepared today to second-guess the decisions that were made by correctional professionals at that time, and I do not think members on the other side are in a position to second-guess those decisions either. Difficult decisions were made under exceptional circumstances.
I recognize there has been some public debate about the decisions that were made. For the most part, the debate has been fanned by political interests. As I said before, I do not believe that the decisions that were made by professional correctional staff should now be second-guessed. But, given the serious nature of this issue, I have referred the entire matter to Mr. Hughes who has conducted a number of these types of reviews with integrity and fairness. I will look to him for the definitive statement on whether the decisions were reasonable. His report, which will be made public, should provide a measure of comfort to Manitobans that the matter of public safety has been addressed. If Mr. Hughes points to weaknesses, we will do something about them as quickly as possible.
That, Mr. Chair, is the update that I can provide for the House. It is information which I said has come to me. It is the most up-to-date information that is available by the Department of Justice, and I hope that will assist members and the public.
* (1530)
Mr. Mackintosh: I first want to deal with the minister's information that Mr. Krocker is--and I believe the characterization from the minister was--providing support to Mr. Hughes or providing information or putting together documents for Mr. Hughes. Can the minister just expand on what his role is in that regard?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that Mr. Hughes requires a submission from the management of Headingley at the time of the riot, and that is the submission that Mr. Krocker is currently working on.
Mr. Mackintosh: I believe the minister said, though. that in addition to that responsibility he was also providing documentation for Mr. Hughes. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed again that he is compiling background information on the operation of the institution, as directed by Mr. Hughes, according to the mandate that Mr. Hughes is using, as the reference point for his review.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is Mr. Krocker compiling his background information at the instruction or request of Mr. Hughes?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed the answer is yes.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is that because the minister offered Mr. Krocker's resources to Mr. Hughes?
Mrs. Vodrey: He is not doing this at my request, as the member I am sure knows. I am told that Mr. Hughes requested a submission from the management at the time of the Headingley riot, and so Mr. Krocker was the person who was the superintendent at the time of the riot. So he is the person who is preparing that information.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is Mr. Krocker working at the instance of Mr. Hughes, in other words, will he be receiving some direction from Mr. Hughes from time to time?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have told Mr. Hughes that he has access to all employees and all documents which he requires, so he is certainly not limited to what Mr. Krocker may be providing. But he is not working as Mr. Hughes's assistant if that is what the member is asking, no, but he is working on a task which was requested to be done by Mr. Hughes and as he was the superintendent at the time he is the individual who is doing that.
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister to clarify whether Mr. Krocker is preparing a submission to Mr. Hughes on behalf of the management of Headingley, or is he providing background information in a less directed sense to Mr. Hughes?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the term used by Mr. Hughes was “submission,” and so the information that I have is that Mr. Krocker is preparing a submission. However, as I have said, Mr. Hughes is free to talk with any individuals who he would like to. We have made all staff available to Mr. Hughes to provide whatever information is required by him.
Mr. Mackintosh: I hope the minister appreciates my concern because I recall, I believe, she characterized his role not only in terms of providing a submission but providing support or indeed some assistance for Mr. Hughes, and if indeed the latter is any part of Mr. Krocker's role we would have some very grave concern. This would be not dissimilar from a Crown attorney preparing the evidence in the event of an inquest into the death of a person in the custody or under the control of the government, but I have very serious concerns that Mr. Krocker have no control, if you will, over the data, the information, the background documents that Mr. Hughes would have access to. That would taint the investigation simply by appearance. I wonder if the minister would respond to that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I understand the concern raised by the member opposite and so just let me clarify again. First of all, he is not an assistant. He is not the gatekeeper in any way of information or the only kind of information. I am informed, Mr. Hughes asked for a submission from Mr. Krocker. However, his is not, I understand, the only information that Mr. Hughes is seeking. As I describe the work that Mr. Krocker is doing, perhaps the member misheard me, so I will just repeat it to clarify in case there was any mistake on the record.
First of all, he is compiling background information and documentation for Mr. Hughes' review. He is also preparing a report, and perhaps that is the word that was misheard as support. He is preparing a report, which Mr. Hughes has called a submission that has been requested by Mr. Hughes, on management's perspective on the operation of Headingley Institution. I am told that it is one of many submissions.
Mr. Mackintosh: While I recognize that Mr. Krocker, given his experience at Headingley, will be an important witness, if you will, I use that term generically, for Mr. Hughes, I stress my concern that if this individual who I understand is responsible to a certain extent for the policies and practices at the institution that were in place at the time of the riot, when he is compiling background information and documentation for Mr. Hughes, is there not a very serious issue, of appearance at least, of bias? Is Mr. Krocker indeed the right one to be doing this? I question, should Mr. Krocker's role ever extend beyond providing opinions in answering questions from Mr. Hughes?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, I have understood the concerns. I am doing my best to reply to those as I understand the information has been requested by Mr. Hughes and where he wants to start in his thinking. If the member is concerned that Mr. Krocker is the only person who may speak for management during this process, I am told that is not the case and that deputy superintendents will speak, executive director of Adult Corrections, the assistant deputy minister, that there is full access and that many, many others will be submissions which are made as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Earlier I asked whether Mr. Krocker was available at the minister's offering to Mr. Hughes. Would the minister confirm that someone, whether Mr. Perozzo or someone in her department, made this offering to Mr. Hughes of Mr. Krocker?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not informed that anyone, and the member mentions Mr. Perozzo specifically, identified him for this task. However, what I am told is, again, that Mr. Hughes asked for a report about management's perspective at the time of the riot, and it was determined that, because he was superintendent at the time of the riot, then he will work with others in the management team to prepare this submission. However, others in the management team still fully expect to be interviewed by Mr. Hughes to be able to provide information, and this is, I am told, a starting place. You cannot get away from it; he was the superintendent at the time, how did he see it?
Mr. Mackintosh: I think this minister has got herself another issue here now. This has got to be independent in every way, and if we have information going to Mr. Hughes which is controlled by the superintendent at the time, we are going to have an appearance of bias.
We are aware of the volumes of documentation, standing orders, in Adult Corrections. We are aware of how those changed over time. We are aware of how there are procedures on so many different areas. We are aware of how the many procedures were not written down, and those changed from time to time.
The information that will be going to Mr. Hughes will be not only complex but critical to his task to give Manitobans truly an independent view. It never reflects on the presiding judge of an inquest or on a commissioner of inquiry or indeed on someone making an independent inquiry themselves, but does reflect on the process itself when one of the main people providing the evidence has a perceived interest in the outcome.
I request that the minister reconsider the role of Mr. Krocker with this independent review, out of an abundance of caution.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told by senior Corrections officials that, when they met with Mr. Hughes, they asked Mr. Hughes, did he want to hear from Mr. Krocker, and Mr. Hughes said that, to their recollection, that would be relevant and that he did want to hear from Mr. Krocker who was superintendent at the time. The task was given to him to work with other senior managers to put together what the management structure and management's perspective on the operation of Headingley Institution was at the time of the riot.
I have made it clear in everything that I have said that Mr. Hughes has made it clear that he will be consulting widely. We as a department and I as minister have made it clear that we are entirely open to Mr. Hughes and that whomever Mr. Hughes would like to speak with, interview, get information from, whatever documents Mr. Hughes requires, that will be open to him.
So, though Mr. Krocker is working on an assignment now, which is seen by Mr. Hughes as relevant to his work, it is only a part of all of the information that Mr. Hughes will be seeking. Now, if the member wants to take issue with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hughes requiring this information and believing that Mr. Krocker is relevant, then the member is free to do so and may do so. I certainly have found that he makes his positions known.
I can tell you that our government made a very strong commitment to have an independent review and to have this review conducted by Mr. Hughes. I will not fall into the trap that the member would like of reaching in and saying, no, no, you cannot talk to this one, or no, no, that one should not do that work for you, Mr. Hughes; I will tell you who should do the work. Mr. Chair, I will not fall into that mode that the member has set. Perhaps that is what he would do.
I have understood the issue raised. I have responded to the issue raised by clearly explaining why Mr. Krocker was asked to do a certain piece of work and that there is significant other work, to my knowledge, that Mr. Hughes has said that he will undertake. He has met with senior Corrections officials; he has had preliminary meetings with them and also with the deputy. So, if the member at the end of this feels that things have not been appropriately done, then he will have to make his point then, but let us give Mr. Hughes a chance to get on with the job.
* (1550)
Mr. Mackintosh: In her opening statement, the minister said that 172 TAs had been granted from April 26 to May 21. Just to clarify, is the minister saying that 172 TAs were issued due to the space pressures on the correctional system throughout Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that, of 172 temporary absences issued, they were issued for a wide variety of reasons. Some of the reasons include medical reasons, programming reasons, and, yes, some were issued as a result of the pressures of space, which is something that we have always acknowledged, that there has been some space pressure in our institutions.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee how many were released due to the pressures of space?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I always find it difficult to get into the numbers issue with the member opposite. As minister, it is a very, very complex issue in which the member, I have found, has sought to simplify many, many times.
I can also tell the member that we have tried to look at the numbers in any number of different ways, and I do not have the exact number listed as a result of the riot. I gather that that is very difficult to determine. The member is trying, it seems to me, to lead to what he can point as a single point, and this is a province-wide, system-wide report for a four-week period. This has been the difficulty, that the member has a sense that things can be simplified down to a single number at a single point, and every time we have tried to answer that question, it seems to be a moving number and has been very, very difficult to isolate and to say, as a result of the riot specifically, how many of those went to another place, how many were medical and so on. I could speak forever on this.
I think it is best, Mr. Chair, to give the member a breakdown as I have it reported from the Department of Justice. It is effective for a four-week period. Therefore, it is cumulative over four weeks. It involves some inmates released at the time of the riot, inmates released also since that time. Whenever I have tried to give a number, the member has said, oh, well, that number is not right because it is not the same number as today or yesterday or whatever day.
I can only stress to the House, to the people of Manitoba through the record of this Legislature, that this is a very, very complex issue to be defined, and I am providing the best information available to me in the most timely time frame, but extremely difficult to always anticipate or to sometimes actually determine why people, or when people, receive their temporary absences.
I can break the number 172 temporary absences down this way for the four-week period: 80 of those have completed their sentences, and, therefore, their temporary absences elapsed; 51 inmates are continuing on temporary absences; 11 inmates have been returned; 17 inmates are released on medical; five inmates have failed to report; and eight inmates were reported as temporary absences who were really on day parole. Now that is the way, for the four-week period cumulatively, that I can account for the number of temporary absences.
This is the result of very, very significant, intensive work done by the department over a period of several days as they reviewed vast amounts of information in attempts to provide the most timely and complete information to the Legislature and through them to the people of Manitoba, and so I am open, with Correction officials here, to answer questions as we are able. I will tell the member some questions may have to be taken as notice because of the complexity of the issue and because of the number of ways that this issue can be seen, but this is now the updated information that we have available.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us the number of persons on TA between April 26 and May 21, rather than talk about the number of TAs?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we do not have that exact number at the moment, because some inmates appear in the data base more than once, because that single inmate may have received a temporary absence more than once--and this is purely hypothetical--but by way of example, may have been granted a temporary absence for medical leave, then may have been granted a temporary absence to work or may have been granted another, a second temporary absence for medical. That is why I am saying it has been so very difficult to actually determine numbers of persons versus temporary absences. This is why the numbers appear to sometimes differ, and they do differ, because temporary absences, as I said, can change within a matter of hours. Someone may be given a temporary absence for a three-hour medical appointment and then returned, and that temporary absence is then over. So, in looking at providing the most complete information, the department has this time recommended that we look at the number of temporary absences granted, the number of times that individuals then would have to have met the criteria, had been assessed and so on, so this is the most up-to-date information that I have at the moment.
* (1600)
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to know how the minister reconciles then her number, from a number of days ago, of 63--I believe she was talking then about persons released on TA--versus the number 172 today.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, I would state to the member, this is always the difficulty in trying to rely on a specific number and why I have spoken about the matter in a more general sense, because it is so difficult to tie down. I was given to understand, 63 inmates were on temporary absence. What is the case now, that information appears to have been incomplete. What is the case was, that number of 63 reflects the number of inmates who are on temporary absences in Winnipeg and in the surrounding area. They were inmates who were released on temporary absences in the time frame April 26 through May 15. That is about a two-week period, two-and-a-half week period. So that would be a cumulative number but reflecting the Winnipeg area, I am told. That is where I am told Corrections retrieved that information and presented it to me on that day, because I have to actually think about what day. That was the information to the 15th of May, and I would have to check exactly what day that information was given to me. I want to be so careful because members opposite are attempting to find, I believe, mischievously, inconsistencies which there is clearly absolutely no intention to have there.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee how many individuals released on TA in the period April 26 to May 21 have now been incarcerated? When she said that 11 returned, is that a full and complete number and would that include, for example, individuals like Mr. Rouire or people who had been charged on other offences?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, of the 11 returned, I am informed by the department, there were nine cancellations, one person charged--that was Mr. Rouire--and there is one other individual. The 11th individual, I do not have information on whether or not there was a charge related to that individual or not.
Now, I am also told that of the nine cancellations, among those nine cancellations are three who have not yet been picked up on their cancellations. So of the nine cancellations, six are in custody and three have not yet been picked up. I believe that accounts for the 11 and a breakdown within the 11 of current status.
Mr. Mackintosh: The number 63 used by the minister, just to be certain, is she referring to persons there or TAs?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the 63 was persons, not temporary absences. That information was given to me as persons.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether temporary absences were granted in excess of 15-day maximum periods?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed, yes, that some inmates were released on what is called back-to-back temporary absences, which is the ability to grant, I am told, 15-day temporary absences and another back to back, and that is consistent with correctional practices actually within our province and across Canada.
I understand, and I am told, that there was a court ruling in Saskatchewan which validated that process from 1988.
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister whether the temporary absence policy that is now in effect is known as policy 80-10.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that staff is not able to confirm that and so we will have to take that as notice.
Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister if, in the next 24 hours, her staff through her office through her could provide to me the temporary absence policy for Adult Corrections, which I understand is not a lengthy document.
Mrs. Vodrey: I will undertake to provide that as quickly as possible. It may not be, however, within 24 hours, and it may be as close to the next sitting of Estimates or shortly after, but I will undertake to provide that for the member. I cannot guarantee a time frame.
As I said, Corrections is not able to confirm the number of the policy. Their question is, if 80 refers to the year of the policy document. I would just like to point out to the member that the regulations were amended in 1995 and those are the regulations which govern temporary absences.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am not searching for the regulations but rather the policy which sets out the criteria that must be assessed before a temporary absence is granted, which is quite a different document. I would like to look at the issue of the granting of temporary absences. It is our understanding or it has been alleged that an emergency TA list, as I think it has been referred to, had been prepared by correctional staff in the event of a strike that was pending or was possible certainly in April.
Can the minister, through her staff, now confirm that such a list, such a contingency plan had been either in the works or completed?
* (1610)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the senior Corrections officials who are here are not aware of such a list being drawn up. However, as heads of institutions are in the position to grant those temporary absences, it may have been in their plan to do so, but we would have to find out from those superintendents.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister confirm that two Annex B supervisors reviewed inmates to determine who could be discharged early in the event of a strike?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to confirm that that list was prepared in the way that the member has put forward. We will have to check and see from the institutions. I am told by senior Corrections officials here that they were not aware of such a list, and so I understand there may be authority for the development of such a list. As I have said before, temporary absences are granted within the institution, but I am not aware and cannot confirm at this time that such a list was developed.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister confirm whether my understanding is correct, that before one in usual circumstances is granted a TA, one must apply and then have that application considered by what is known as a TA Board?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that normally there would be a board, but the regulations allow for a time when there may not be a board, or for the superintendent to make a decision without the board, and also the superintendent may make decisions about inmates who have not formally applied.
Mr. Mackintosh: My question was in the usual instance, is my understanding correct of the process, or is she saying that the superintendent will generally from time to time make such decisions, or is she only referring to the event of the strike where the superintendent makes such a decision--the riot or the strike?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am informed that normally, under normal circumstances, there is a board. However, in a situation, for instance, of a medical temporary absence, then the superintendent has the authority, without going to the board under some circumstances such as medical, to not go through the board. The regulation does allow for that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the staff, through the minister, advise of the date of release of Mr. Rouire?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, this is again a question about an inmate or an individual who is currently facing charges before the court. Obviously, any information which I give or any comment that I make could in fact influence the process which is before the court.
I am attempting to provide for the member opposite as much information as we can have available, as we have available in the most up-to-date form, but there are some rules which just do not change. The rule that just is not changing is the one that we spent an extensive period of time talking about yesterday, and that is the role of the Attorney General and whether or not the Attorney General can comment about individuals or cases which are currently before the court.
* (1620)
I have made it my practice not to make any comment. As I understand my role as Attorney General of Manitoba, I will not be able to make a comment on the member's question. That is consistent with my practice at all times. He can reflect back over my almost three-year term as Attorney General, in which case I do not believe that I have spoken about a case which is before the court or where an individual faces charges.
In this case, I am following the usual practice. I am following the practice and the standard that has been set, that I not comment. I will be continuing that practice and am not able to comment on that individual.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder what advice the minister is receiving on that. This does not go to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Rouire. It does not go to any of the issues that will touch on his trial. I simply want to know, when was he released from Headingley? That is irrelevant to the charges that are pending.
Mrs. Vodrey: I have sought advice on this. Again, the information I have received, and again consistent with all my past practices, that any facts that are discussed can be placed in issue at the time of the trial. Any facts that I bring forward may be placed in issue at the time of the trial, and it is because of that--it is not whether this goes to his guilt or innocence, but whether or not any information or facts then may be used and placed in issue at the time of the trial. That is why I will not be answering that question, and I believe the member really does understand this. I have to say that I honestly believe he does. Members of his party have been Attorney General, a long time ago, when they happened to hold office, and it is simply not a practice that I intend to breach, certainly according to the standards set by this government.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, if this is the analysis of the minister, can she tell the House what will be her position at trial or sentencing on Mr. Rouire's release if in fact she believes that that will become relevant at that time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member could repeat his question perhaps with a little bit of clarification.
Mr. Mackintosh: If the minister is of the opinion or of the view that the date of Mr. Rouire's release will be relevant either to sentencing or to trial, can she at least tell this House what her position will be as to the facts at that time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member tries to develop something from this, and my position all the time has been that all of our information is given in court, all of it. That is according to the practices of the way that I have managed the role of Attorney General and, I believe, others before me.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee what is happening to the intermittent--I believe they are called intermittents--those who are serving sentences on weekends at Headingley? What has happened since the date of the riot to those individuals, and how are they serving their intermittence?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said from the beginning, one of our priorities is the reopening of Headingley, that the reopening of Headingley with its beds will be very important to all Manitobans. For those individuals serving intermittent sentences, I will just remind the member of my statement of the most up-to-date information that I have, intermittents were deliberately excluded while I dealt with other temporary absence inmates. What I am informed, to the best of our information, to the best of the information coming to me at this time, is that the intermittent sentenced individuals are reporting to the Community Release Centre, that they are being assigned community work assignments or work projects and they are to the best of our knowledge completing those, working on those, and I am not sure if the member has other questions regarding those individuals.
* (1630)
Mr. Mackintosh: In other words, would the minister confirm that the intermittents have been granted a TA?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised by the senior correctional officials who are here that it will be best for us to report back on whether those individuals are granted TAs. We need to have some clarification around that so, rather than give a definitive answer, I will report back with that information to the House and to the member.
Mr. Mackintosh: I will have to conclude for the moment at least, unless the minister provides me with other evidence, that these individuals can only be excused from serving their intermittent sentences by a temporary absence. Otherwise, they are required to report and serve their time. Would the minister respond to that?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member puts the question quite simply. It is in fact, I am told, quite a technical question depending upon CRC as a designated institution and how work is done and the reporting process. So I am told that Corrections officials have said that they will check. I believe that this is an important process. We have talked about this. Where the information is not readily available, in the interests of being correct and information delivered and put on the record, that we be given the opportunity to report back. That is what I have asked for.
Now, in saying that I will report back, the member has drawn a conclusion. He says, well, then I can only conclude that such and such a thing must be the case. What I am saying is I do not believe that you should draw any conclusions at this point because you have asked a question, and I have explained that it is a technical question and that we will get the information and will bring it back. I believe that it is very premature for the member to draw a conclusion. This has been the practice in the past; however, I am asking him at this point in the interests of the people of Manitoba to have the correct information, to wait until I am able to deliver it to him.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is there a will to break for five minutes?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Is it the will of the committee to recess for five minutes?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): So agreed. The committee will recess.
The committee recessed at 4:34 p.m.
________
After Recess
The committee resumed at 4:47 p.m.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The committee will come to order.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister now tell the committee what arrangements were made with Saskatchewan to receive some overflow of inmates and, in that regard, would she tell the committee how many went to Saskatchewan?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, just before the break, we were speaking about Community Release Centres so I will get to the member's question on Saskatchewan.
In Question Period the member put some information on the record which was again incorrect. I think it is important to clarify it also on the record as Corrections officials are here now and are able to provide some further information to figures the member put forward.
First of all, he indicated that according to his source or his information that approximately 10 percent of inmates were unlawfully at large. He assumes that that figure, he used a static prison figure, and then he uses a number of unlawfully at large. I just would like to clarify for him that that number is a cumulative number, cumulative from 1989. So it is not unlawfully at large this year, specifically that that many people became unlawfully at large. This is a cumulative figure. He puts that against this year's prison population. To be accurate in his ratio, he would need to then take the total prison population over the past seven years approximately and put that figure of 135 against that to come to his ratio. So again he has put forward information. He has tried to create something.
* (1650)
When the media were here, I was careful to not accept any of his information without checking because it is important to clarify for the people of Manitoba the information that the member is attempting to put forward. So I believe that clarifies the issue.
Now, to the Saskatchewan matter, there were a total of 29 inmates who have been transferred to Regina. There were 21 transferred originally, and there were eight transferred yesterday.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister been advised of the capacity of Saskatchewan to receive inmates from Manitoba?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we have been advised of the capacity in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Mackintosh: What is that capacity?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised the capacity is 31 inmates.
Mr. Mackintosh: What financial arrangements have been made with Saskatchewan then to facilitate this receiving of inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised by Corrections that Manitoba has agreed to pay the cost of extra staffing required to accommodate the Manitoba inmates. The other costs will be determined when we have brought back all of our inmates from Saskatchewan into Manitoba.
Mr. Mackintosh: Have arrangements also been made with the Province of Alberta for receiving inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the potential to send inmates to Alberta exists, but we have not at this time made arrangements with that province to send inmates there. Obviously, the very best situation will be the reopening of Headingley Institution so inmates are here in Manitoba. It is in our movement towards the reopening of Headingley that Corrections is working diligently with the return-to-Headingley committee. We want to obviously work to opening our own institution as quickly as possible, but we are looking at opening it, working carefully with the return-to-work committee.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has therefore Alberta offered to receive inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told by the senior Corrections officials here that there were preliminary discussions about whether or not it may be possible to receive inmates, but a formal request has not gone from us to receive inmates, nor has a formal answer been received back from Alberta about receiving inmates.
* (1700)
Mr. Mackintosh: Were there discussions with Alberta at some level regarding the cost of the receipt of inmates in Alberta?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the answer is no, to the question of cost.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether there was a movement of inmates at the Milner Ridge Correctional institution following the riot in order to deal with the pressure on the correction system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the question, I believe, was: Was there movement from Headingley to Milner? I am informed by Corrections officials that, yes, there was some movement from Headingley to Milner.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of whether there was additional capacity at Milner in the days following the riot for the receipt of inmates?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that Milner was at or near capacity at the time before the riot and that there were inmates that were transferred there which brought it to capacity, slightly over, following the riot. That is the best information that I have at the moment.
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to deal with the staffing level at the Community Release Centre on Midland.
It is my understanding that there are currently three staff there, and, in addition to that, Bev Owens, who, I think, had been originally assigned to that centre, has been signed to work at Headingley and, since now, I think, has been transferred to Portage or elsewhere.
I was wondering if the minister can confirm my understanding that there are effectively, and currently, three SYs at the Community Release Centre?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the information that I have received from senior correctional officials, which is information dated today, the Community Release Centre staffing will continue to be adjusted upward and downward as required, depending upon the workload fluctuation and demands. Since the riot and workload increases, the staffing was increased to six.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister confirm that the appropriation to the Community Release Centre is officially four and practically is three?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that there is not an official appropriation to the CRC, that it is staffed out of Headingley and that the staffing is adjusted upward or downward depending upon the workload fluctuations.
Mr. Mackintosh: In 1993, there was an initiative known as the intensive supervision program for the CRC to supervise 130 individuals who would comprise the caseload and that the staffing would move from what I believe was about 10 or 10.5 SYs up to 14 SYs.
I am wondering if the minister can tell us what happened to those plans. Were the 14 SYs attained?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, senior Corrections officials have provided me with some information which I think is important and shows that there is always more to it than what the member puts out at Question Period and attempts to draw some conclusions from. I am told that program audits and staffing reviews were conducted on the CRC in 1994, and they recommended reductions of staff pursuant to downward trends in workload and the following service changes. Services at the CRC were streamlined from multiprogramatic, intermittent offender admission classification and transportation functions were realigned from the CRC to the Winnipeg Remand Centre and there were reductions in some community investigation functions and staffing levels have fluctuated from as low as two in the late '80s, which I mentioned earlier today, rising to 13 in '93-94, and that a total of seven positions were phased out as a result of the program audit and the staffing review and some of the changes in job function that I have spoken about. As I have said, I am informed that since the riot and because of the increasing workload the staffing has been increased to six presently.
* (1710)
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister not recognize that a function of the number of cases at the CRC is a function of commitment to transferring low-risk offenders to community alternatives? I ask the minister, what decisions have been made in that regard?
Mrs. Vodrey: The answers that I gave in Question Period to the member are still very much the answers now. I am informed and understand that the population of offenders became high risk and that the length of their sentence therefore increased. So there were fewer eligible for the CRC, and then following that we had rigorous confinement. Rigorous confinement also then lengthened the time for individuals to become eligible. First of all, we have always used halfway houses and because of the population we have moved to more halfway houses because of the greater amount of control that can be exercised in that setting.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister taking the position that inmates at Milner are high risk then?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am not sure how the member draws that conclusion. I cannot quite see how he does that and, no, that is not what I am saying at all.
Mr. Mackintosh: It was planned under the intensive community supervision program to work at the CRC with Native Clan, and perhaps John Howard and Literacy Association to provide programming in addition to the 14 staff that was planned to be deployed there. I wonder if the minister could advise what happened to that plan?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that that programming function moved into the institutions and that is where inmates by and large took the programming and that it was seen as a duplication to offer some of the programming through the CRC.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise what staff had originally been responsible for the transportation function at the CRC? What staff positions?
Mrs. Vodrey: We are not able to provide the member with the information of the number of staff that were involved in the transportation at this time.
Mr. Mackintosh: Aside from the number of staff or staff-years involved can the minister advise what staff position was responsible for transportation under the proposed intensive supervision program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that staff do not have that detail available to them right now. I am wondering, the member is asking some questions where we do not have that information. Is there something that he is getting at? Is there something that he wants to know? Is there some underlying issue here that he would like us to comment on?
If there is, I wish he would say, because we had some information delivered by him today in Question Period, and it was incorrect, so I am obviously seeking to clear up any misperceptions which may be out there, to give the information. If there is something underlying the question of who the staff person is or that staff year, does he have some theory? Then I think it would be great if he would tell us so that we could then try and deal with his issue
He is asking questions which individuals here are not able to identify that specific person. I have to wonder what it is about that person he wants to know. If he would give us a little bit of information, then we would certainly be happy to check on it for him, or does he have some theory that he wants to talk about, in which case I will be able to give him again some further information on that theory?
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the position is, I think I laid out in Question Period clearly, that it appears that the CRC has gone from a planned 14 SYs in 1993 down to effectively three SYs now, although the minister now says that there were some additional people brought in following the riot. There obviously is an issue of concern.
She said, well, the staff was reduced because they did not have to perform the transportation function of inmates anymore. I want to know how many staff years were devoted to transportation, and if she cannot tell me that, if she can at least tell me the position descriptions. Was it the program co-ordinator, the community caseworkers, the correctional supervisors, was it the OCs? Who was responsible for transportation if that was such a critical reason for the reduction in staffing at the CRC?
* (1720)
Mrs. Vodrey: I have said the number of staff working at the Community Release Centre is six, not three, which the member has continued to put on the record.
I have explained in Question Period, with some information have further explained here now in Estimates the reasons for the change. One of the issues that I raised as reason for the change was that intermittent offender admission classification and transportation functions were realigned from the CRC to the Winnipeg Remand Centre. I explained that there was a realignment of function, and the member seems to be having trouble, saying, well, if you do not have to do that anymore, there still should be people there.
He speaks about the fact of his commitment to some number of 14, that, though the functions have changed, the programs may be offered within the institutions, which still hold fast, and it is just typical NDP, typical NDP, just go ahead and keep spending, keep the people there and do not really worry, no assessment whatsoever, just keep them going.
Mr. Chair, I have trouble understanding his point in that regard, and I think the people of Manitoba will have trouble understanding that point, too.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding, and the minister certainly has access to the information, that the intensive community supervision program staffing levels were not contingent on the transportation function. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I spoke about services being streamlined from multiprogrammatic. I spoke about a review which was conducted because of the changes of where certain functions took place, including program functions. The member is focusing on transportation function. I am having trouble figuring out why he is hooked on that one word when I have spoken about it as multiprogrammatic. He might be able to enlighten the House on that.
Mr. Mackintosh: The other day we asked the question in addition to the TAs granted, and today the minister gave the time period April 26 to May 21. Can the minister also advise how many individuals were released outright and considered by the department at end of sentence during that same time period?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that we do not have that number yet, that the focus of the staff's recent work, through the volumes of information and attempts to break it down according to specific needs and placement and so on, focused on temporary absences, so I do not have the information today available on end of sentence.
I again would stress how careful we are wanting to be in terms of any numbers which we are giving, so it is clear that those numbers are numbers which have been checked against all other numbers, where a certain number is inclusive of another number, that we can explain that, so there is not faulty arithmetic being done, so there are not faulty conclusions being jumped to. So now the team which has been assisting in the review of temporary absences will be looking at other matters, and that will be among them.
I just want to say that one of our major efforts to provide all this information is, of course, for the people of Manitoba, but really we are wanting to make sure that this information is available in a readily available and understandable form for Mr. Hughes because Mr. Hughes will be beginning his very careful review this Friday. So our effort has been to accumulate for him and to be able to put forward to him the best information possible and to not have to have him--where he needs further clarification, then we will at least have a good base of information to provide that clarification.
We will be working to look at information in terms of releases. We have reviewed temporary absences. We have not yet done the intermittent sentences. We will be looking at that. Again, I would stress that our accountability in the interest of public safety has been to call this independent review, and that was done immediately. We are now at the time where that information is required, so that is what we are working towards within Corrections Division and with the staff that has been temporarily assigned to assist in putting those numbers together.
Mr. Mackintosh: They just acknowledge--it has been a rough four weeks certainly for individuals concerned with this and particularly for the staff of the department. I just want the staff to understand that we certainly fully recognize the pressures that they have had on them and how these extraordinary events have put pressures on both them and their families. We salute what they have had to deal with. So just in the course of political debate and public dialogue, I think those who are involved often feel that that is not acknowledged. I guess this is a time to do that and just recognize the personal commitment that is required of people when they are in circumstances like this.
With those remarks, I have no further questions today, Mr. Chair, unless the time allows.
Mrs. Vodrey: I think it is important that the member has now finally recognized the efforts of Corrections Division and that it is people who work there and it is people who have families and who have put forward an extraordinary effort. I am very pleased to hear that he has acknowledged today too that the debate has been political. That is exactly what we have always said.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The hour being 5:30 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
The Acting Speaker (Mike Radcliffe): The hour being 5:30 p.m., the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).