JUSTICE

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee will come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Department of Justice. At this time, we invite the minister's staff to enter the Chamber.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): The minister gave a different series of numbers about those who were released in the month following the Headingley riot. I am wondering if the minister can tell us whether the numbers of sex offenders released has changed now from 12.

Mr. Chairperson: Just for the information of the committee, by leave, the committee has temporarily set aside Resolutions 4.2 and 4.3 and is considering Resolution 4.4, which is Corrections.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chair, the number was 14, but, as the member knows, one of those was released on bail by the courts. That leaves 13 others.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thought the number was 13, minus one on bail, for 12. Can the minister just refresh my memory?

Mrs. Vodrey: The number within the window period that we spoke about, which was approximately a four-week period, is 14, I am told. Of those 14, one was released on bail. That is in that four-week period as information given to me now by officials.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise of the status of the inmates injured in the riot? Are any still in health care facilities?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that a number of the inmates have been receiving medical treatment on an outpatient basis. There was one inmate, I am told, who was in hospital, released, returned to hospital. I do not have the details at the moment as to whether that individual is still in hospital or was released and returned again. I will have to undertake to find out that information.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise whether the injured inmates are receiving psychological counselling? If so, is that at public expense?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that inmates in custody would be receiving some psychological services if required that would be provided by the trained staff within our institutions.

In terms of those in the community, I am not able to tell him specifically about any numbers. I am told that contact was made by Corrections to the Community and Mental Health Division, but whether or not they are, in fact, actively seeing any inmates is not known to me at this time.

* (1600)

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of whether any correctional officers are receiving psychological assistance beyond the offices of the Employee Assistance Program?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that for staff, for correctional officers, that some are receiving support through the EAP and through Workers Compensation, but, beyond that, their attendance with a psychologist or a mental health care professional is confidential and so we do not have that information.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister offered or is the minister's department prepared to help with the funding of any required psychological assistance that is needed beyond what the EAP can offer?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that an offer was made by senior correctional officials through the EAP for interim psychological assistance for returning to work.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of any incidents at all of any backlash, retaliation against correctional officers who spoke up either during or following the riot by more senior staff in the correctional system?

Mrs. Vodrey: Having checked with senior officials who are with me at the table, I am told the answer is, absolutely not.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell us what the capacity of the Remand Centre is and what the current count is? The count might be, say, Monday and Tuesday, or what is her understanding of the range of the count for this week?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the capacity at the Remand is 289, that the count in the Remand today is 334.

Mr. Mackintosh: Given the overcrowding there, is my understanding correct that inmates are sleeping on the floor in the institution?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that in dealing with these numbers that some inmates have been sleeping on the floor, but sleeping on the floor with mattresses and full bedding, so they have been accommodated with all of those needs.

Mr. Mackintosh: Given that overcrowding can be a factor which leads to other security problems and pressures on the staff, have there been increases to staff and other security precautions taken to deal with the overcrowding?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that staff positions have been increased. Seven posts have been added; that, secondly, there are ongoing meetings with joint counsel to examine any concerns which might arise; and, thirdly, in coping with the numbers, there have been some changes in what may be called the services to inmates. For example, there have been reduced visits.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee whether there have been any disturbances at the Remand Centre as a result of this overcrowding in the last several weeks?

Mrs. Vodrey: Staff inform me that there are often and always some disturbances at some levels within these institutions. However, I am told that there has been no significant disturbance that is different or out of the ordinary to the kinds of concerns which are of a general nature in terms of managing an institution such as this.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in this time period, is the minister aware whether there have been any disturbances resulting in personal injury to any of the staff?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, if the member could clarify for us which time period he is speaking of.

Mr. Mackintosh: I said in the last several weeks, but the time since the riot at Headingley jail.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told by the senior Corrections officials who are here that none have been brought to their attention. If the member is aware of any, then I hope he will add to our ongoing diligence in terms of dealing with this very difficult situation. That co-operative method is always the most helpful.

Mr. Mackintosh: We have raised in this House the issue of the barrier wall in cell block No. 1, going essentially to the minister's credibility. I think that was the issue there when she belittled the question by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Would the minister now tell the committee whether or not the barrier wall did exist, in fact, in cell block No. 1 and was removed relatively recently?

* (1610)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed by the senior Corrections officials who are here today that the cell block wall in block one does, in fact, exist. I am told that the wall in cell block one, the change was that the door was opened, but the wall has not been removed. The walls were removed in some cell blocks. I am told today by the officials who are here with me that the wall has not been removed in cell block one. So if the member wants to produce some further information on that, I am currently seeking further clarification on this, as well.

My comments, by the way, were not a belittling to this. My comments were that often incorrect information is brought forward. That is clear. That is absolutely noted by Manitobans who watch Question Period, by people who listen to members opposite. We often have wrong information brought to them. They throw it up as sort of flyers, it seems to me. Do not let me attribute motives, but we often have wrong information. So my comments were basically that we often have wrong information. That is what I said, and then we went from there.

The members opposite chose to view that in a different way, and they chose to make it somehow another matter and chose perhaps to deliberately misunderstand the comments. One can only ask what productivity to the people of Manitoba there is in that, other than what may appear to be political.

That was the preface to my comments in Question Period, which occurred quite sometime ago, and I did seek the detailed information and have put forward significant detailed information around walls and any walls that have been removed. I understand that there was some question between two answers given by Corrections officials, and it was very difficult to know exactly which wall the member was referring to, in which cell block, and that was really the major issue.

It is very easy to sit on one side and make a comment, and with the tremendous volume of work which has been required by Corrections officials in this division, the answers were provided in the best way possible, and to have seen the ridicule that came from members across the House where there was such an effort to answer the questions, the information sought through Corrections officials and information returned, information asked in huge scrums, where it was very difficult for people to make themselves clear.

Now, the short answer to all of this in terms of credibility is, I believe, that really everyone has really done the best that they can and that the information brought forward has always been to the best of our knowledge and ability at the time. Where clarifications are required, clarifications have been given, and they have been given as clarifications. As information has been used to attempt--and, again, I have to be careful to not attribute a specific motive, but what appears to be political gain, what appears to be that, it has been very difficult to try and get the information out in the interests of the people of Manitoba.

So the other side has made a great deal of the efforts to provide information by senior Corrections officials, by the minister, by people who have spoken, with information provided, and I still have to say to myself I am not sure how this has been helpful to the people of Manitoba. I certainly agree that it is important to get the information out. That is what we have been striving to do and to get it out in the most clear fashion.

That is the context to what the member referred to as my comments in relation to a question from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), and I think some context is required there. However, the information that I have received, again to clarify, and I received this from senior Corrections officials, is that, in cell block No. 1, I have been told that the wall still does exist but is open, the door is open, and that the wall has not been removed. As I said, other walls have been removed. Some walls have been removed at the request of the guards because they had wanted to have better vision. In some cases there was a wall up and, when the Remand Centre opened, then there was a concern that there could not be adequate supervision as a result of the wall.

I am told that any changes, to the best of everyone's knowledge and memory, were dealt with through the workplace safety committee. So I am endeavouring to see if there is further information here on other walls within the institution that may or may not have been removed. I do not seem to have that information, but perhaps we could be looking for that information over the next while if the member wishes to continue in this line of questioning.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the information that the barrier wall is still there appears to contradict statements from staff that were apparently or allegedly involved in taking down that wall. It is certainly contrary to our understanding of a statement by senior staff that the wall had never existed. But I think this is an issue that, hopefully, Mr. Hughes will deal with and get to the bottom of.

Would the minister tell the committee what training correctional officers receive before they become assigned to making decisions as to whether a temporary absence pass should be granted or not?

* (1620)

Mrs. Vodrey: Just again, to provide a final comment on the wall, as the member knows, Mr. Hughes will have the opportunity to examine anything which is considered to be important in looking at the causes of the riot. That is whom we are relying on. That is whom we will be looking to to provide us with information and an assessment about what led to the riot and how things were managed, and also in the area of temporary absences. I think that is whom Manitobans now will be looking towards.

The issue of the wall, a great deal has been made of it by members opposite, as I said, for lots of reasons. Again, some individuals would like to have it up and others would like to have it down. I guess it depends on whom he happens to be talking to at the moment as to what he might bring forward. However, I would certainly just like to leave that issue by saying that we agree that we will have Mr. Hughes examine any issues and, if the wall should present itself as an issue in terms of the cause of the riot, then we will be looking to that. Most sincerely, we are looking forward to any recommendations, the assessment and recommendations, which may be brought forward by Mr. Hughes.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that no one wants this to occur again, that we certainly will be working with Corrections officials, and we will be working with the report when it is submitted, to do all things possible to make sure that this does not occur again. That was our intention.

When I look at what happened at the time of the riot, the issues of public safety were uppermost in our minds to bring the institution back under control and then to call the independent review to determine the facts of what had occurred there. Those were the two steps taken very, very early by this government in terms of the Headingley riot. Though we have gone on in the last many hours of Estimates with the member asking a lot of detailed questions, including certain times and dates and other details, that really will be ultimately what Mr. Hughes will comment on and what Mr. Hughes will tell us. So I think that for the people of Manitoba, that is where we place our faith.

The member also asked some questions about training around the area of temporary absences. I am told that staff members do not receive a specific training program around the granting of temporary absences. However, they are acquainted with the temporary absence regulations, which are regulations which I have referred to many times, both at the time when they were passed, at the time when inmates were frustrated that they could not get out for Christmas because the regulations were changed. Since the time of the riot, I have commented a number of times on our regulations. I am told that though staff may make the recommendation, the decision on the temporary absence is a decision taken by the superintendent, ultimately, and that staff training has focused on matters such as risk assessment in the release plan. That, obviously, is of a significant impact and importance in terms of any decisions made. The other type of training is also a case management technique.

So the focus has been, again, on risk assessment and case management techniques and the ultimate decision around the temporary absences made by the superintendent of the institution, I am told.

Mr. Mackintosh: Who does the risk assessment on an individual applying for TA then? Is it the correctional officer, or is it the superintendent, or is it a combination of both?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that a risk assessment is done by correctional officers on the admission of the inmate. Then further risk assessment is done by program staff or the unit manager on an ongoing basis. Then a recommendation goes to the superintendent regarding temporary absence, based on those risk assessments which are carried out, as I said and I am told, in two phases.

Mr. Mackintosh: Regarding the risk assessment done by program staff or the unit managers, what training do those individuals have to assess risk?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that there is training in the area of risk assessment, but that, as a result of a divisional initiative, there has now been additional training in the area of risk assessment and the use of the risk assessment tool.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister describe the duration, either in terms of hours or days, of the training in risk assessment?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the training itself is delivered by a staffperson specifically designated to deal with the risk assessment and risk assessment tool, and that the training lasts for staff approximately half a day, and that the use of that tool is then monitored on a regular basis by the individual, by that staffperson, who has specifically the responsibility for the risk assessment tool within the division.

* (1630)

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there any ongoing review of the risk assessment techniques or training, perhaps, now given the importance of maintaining public safety in light of, what I would say is, an important program, the TA program, and to maintain the integrity of the TA program?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the risk assessment tool has had an extensive review over the past year and a half. There has been also a review of the literature in terms of the most up-to-date

view of the risk assessment tool. There has been consultation with the Correctional Services of Canada in reviewing this risk assessment tool. There has been consultation with Dr. Jim Bonta, chief of correctional research with the Correctional Services of Canada and also Dr. Steven Hart from Simon Fraser University, who is a criminologist at Simon Fraser University. I understand that the tool was acknowledged in the inquest into the death of Sarah Dawn Kelly.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: Regarding the supervision of individuals on TA, what would be the options of supervision for individuals on TA who live outside the city of Winnipeg and outside of the capital region?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that for outside the capital region, the supervision on temporary absences can be done by reporting to police in that area, through community participation agreements--we have a number of those with aboriginal communities--through band councils, through probations, through private agencies, including the John Howard Society, and also through agencies such as friendship centres, I am told, in The Pas, in Portage and in Brandon. So those are some of the examples.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the department currently engaged in any review of the supervision scheme for people on TA?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that there is an ongoing review of this, and that in the Winnipeg area there is a development of quite a stringent program in relation to youth in particular.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is this new program in relation to adults, as well?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that for adults it is not seen as a specific program but is certainly available and that where an individual case requires this more stringent supervision, then that is provided. It is unique to the requirements, but, also, on the adult side, we have halfway houses which are available. Those halfway houses provide a more stringent kind of supervision than a temporary absence release directly into the community. There is that option on the adult side.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister or the department have any plans to expand the number and range of halfway houses?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we have the capacity, that if we require more beds in halfway houses, then to acquire them. It is not our plan to simply acquire the beds and then fill them, but I am told that where there is an assessment of the supervision need, that we are then able to acquire the bed on behalf of that individual.

I see the Chair wondering--the question was, are we intending to expand? What the answer is is that we are not intending to expand without inmates to fill them. If it is required, that level of intensive supervision is required, then we will acquire the beds. That is open to us to do, but we are not going to go and acquire 20 more beds and then look for somebody who just might fit the bill to fill them.

* (1640)

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister or the department have any current plans to expand the Community Options, which would obviously have to include supervision and supports in the community to reduce the bed counts in the institutions in Adult Corrections?

Mrs. Vodrey: Really, our first concern is the issue of public safety, and that will always be what guides us in terms of any plans or decisions that we take in terms of whether or not there is more release into the community or changes. It is not our intention at this time to do that, it is not our intention. We are not moving in that direction. The bill which was discussed by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of Justice, that bill, I believe it is C-41, is providing an ability for those further Community Options to be looked at. There are some provinces across the country that are very, very much looking for that use.

In Manitoba, though we are very supportive of community participation, we are supportive of community justice committees, we have been supportive in the past of our part of restorative justice and also mediation, it is not our intention at this time to look at moving in that direction. I just want to make sure that that is well understood on the record in that we have been supportive of these areas.

I believe the member's question was are we looking at expanding into these areas as a result of prison population. No, not as a result of prison population. There will be ability for us with certain types of inmates if it becomes our policy decision, when C-41 is passed, to move further in this area. At the moment we have not made a decision to do that. Our decision is in the interest of public safety.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, given Bill C-41, is the minister considering what options would be available to the province through Community Corrections to expand the Community Corrections in the appropriate cases, public safety, of course, being the main criteria, and perhaps reviewing initiatives taken in such jurisdictions as New Brunswick. Is that kind of review ongoing; and a second part to that question, what resources are the federal government going to release in order to provide a carrot for the provinces to move to greater reliance on Community Corrections?

Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of Bill C-41, we have an interdivisional committee that is working on the proposals in Bill C-41. The bill will impact in a number of areas, a number of areas, and I am not sure if the member has had the opportunity to go through that bill.

It is really very significant, and I believe that on behalf of Manitobans we want to be very careful about what kind of options that we look at for our province. That is what the bill does. It will allow for some options. The member references some provinces that have a great interest in this bill. There are others than the one that he mentioned.

For us, we will be examining what the interdivisional committee reports as options, and I think it is important to look at the whole impact on the justice system. Then we will be looking at what options this government might consider.

He asked about money. To our knowledge, there are no resources accompanying this bill, no resources to have us move into the community. That certainly is a concern along with other reductions that have been made by the federal government in the community in the Canadian health and social transfer payments. You know, there is quite a reduction, and obviously a great number of the services that are provided through that transfer may, in fact, be services necessary when people are within the community under Bill C-41.

Mr. Mackintosh: Was it therefore the view of the minister that, although the Liberal government is talking about and urging greater community correctional options, it is not prepared to provide a carrot, to provide assistance to move the country in that direction?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member does offer me an opportunity to speak about the federal government and their role in the justice system and the fact that, no, we have not been provided with or offered any additional funds at this point in terms of moving towards greater participation of the community and Community Corrections, though it is clear that the federal government is very interested in this and would like to have this greater participation for lots of reasons, particularly from the federal side.

If that money was available, we would look at what options were available and how that might be used, but to this point the federal Liberal government has done nothing more than put forward a bill.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the minister's current view of the Restorative Resolutions project? Does she see that there are positive outcomes from that project at this time?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I replied in Question Period, I believe it was yesterday, on the Restorative Resolutions issue that in our view the outcomes have been generally positive. As the member knows, it targets a very specific group of individuals who might be qualified, and that was the terms under which Manitoba came to the table with the federal government to look at the Restorative Resolutions possibility and pilot project.

We understand that the interim evaluation appeared to also be supportive, so our experience appeared to be supportive. The interim evaluation appeared to be supportive and there is a formal evaluation being done by, again, Dr. Bonta from Ottawa.

Our position is that we have been continually supportive. It has really been quite interesting how the last time this was raised, I think it was about a year ago, it was raised again that somehow the province was going to let this slip away, but the province's money has been on the table. Our participation in terms of our staffing commitment and the money that we put forward for Restorative Resolutions has been there. Our difficulty is that we do not have a commitment from the federal Liberal government who is interested in passing Bill C-41 or is interested in more Community Options. We do not have any commitment from the federal Liberal government that they are prepared to continue with their dollars.

* (1650)

This province's position is that whether it is in social services, whether it is in health, whether it is in post-secondary education, we cannot continue to backfill what the federal government withdraws from the people of this province. So though we are supportive and have indicated that, we do not yet have any firm commitment from the federal Liberal government that they are prepared to continue with the program.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, again, I mean, we had correspondence last year. I certainly urge the minister to do everything in her power to ensure that this project continues because of its significance not only in this province.

Now, I understand the argument that the province should underwrite this project because it is the province that will reap the immediate benefits of any cost savings in terms of incarceration. I also, though, appreciate the argument that the federal government has a stake in this, not only because it helped begin this project, underwrite it initially, but that this is of national importance, not only in terms of the objects of Bill C-41 but because the federal government has an interest in promoting alternatives, and this is a model. This is a unique experiment in Canada, as my understanding goes, and I am wondering, is that the argument that the minister advances for continuing federal participation?

The reason I ask that, I would like the minister's understanding as to the proper role of both governments in funding this project with the view that this project is one that if you stand back and look at the Corrections system is essential.

Mrs. Vodrey: We are meeting with the Restorative Resolutions people and the John Howard Society to look at how we may continue our participation past the September deadline.

In terms of the role of the federal government, it certainly is our position that they have some responsibility in this area that there is federal legislation which governs a great deal of what we do, and as a result of that legislation, then it is clear that this is a co-operative effort, and it requires the co-operative effort. And we see the federal government putting forward what is called a pilot project, but, you know, it was not their pilot project all by themselves, it was a joint pilot project. It was an agreement that we would look at something. We see the federal government often coming up with some ideas which then they withdraw from very quickly.

So it is our position that where the evaluation is positive that it should be a matter of strong consideration for the federal government considering their role in the justice system, some of the legislative responsibility that they bear, and that this is something in which it would be, I think, important to work co-operatively. As I have said, this government is looking at seeing how we can pursue should the federal government happen to withdraw as we have seen in a number of cases.

This issue has been raised and the whole issue--well, I will wait for further questions and perhaps add on then.

Mr. Mackintosh: I want the minister to assure the committee that despite the overcrowding at the Remand Centre that there will not be any instructions to Crowns to take that into consideration on bail applications. Can the minister give that assurance?

Mrs. Vodrey: The position is for the Crowns that it is business as usual.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister give reviews on privatization of correctional facilities, whether there is a review by her department with that issue in mind, and what are her views on privatization of jails?

Mrs. Vodrey: We have no such review in this province ongoing at all, and though the member references New Brunswick, which I believe did have such a review going on--perhaps that is what piqued his interest--we do not have such a review in Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise the committee of her view of the possible use or the usefulness of electronic bracelets and monitoring individuals either pre or after sentence?

Mrs. Vodrey: This issue of the electronic monitoring has been an issue of interest throughout the Justice department including the judiciary as the member may know. We are quite interested in how it may be applied, for instance, where bail has been granted, and our position has been in some cases, there should be a reverse onus on bail, but the federal government has not agreed to do that in the area where the victim still may be at risk, and we felt that reverse onus on bail would be a very important step.

That has not happened. The federal government has not agreed to that, and so I have had some discussion with the judiciary about whether or not electronic monitoring in that case may then be helpful in the interest of public safety, that that would be then an additional way to check on the whereabouts of the individual who is not allowed to see certain people, may be released with conditions of some sort.

In terms of release after sentencing, we are not looking at electronic monitoring as a way to release someone earlier. That is simply not an area that we are interested in. How it may be used after sentencing, I think we still have to examine the issue I know is being discussed, but one of the first areas of interest that I believe our government may be interested in is again where bail has been granted and there appears to still be a concern for the safety of the victim.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I urge the minister to consider that option and, as the minister is likely aware, that issue came out of the task force on domestic violence hearings conducted by our caucus as a potential way of ensuring the safety particularly of a victim of domestic violence where there is an ongoing oppression perhaps and ongoing anger that is directed at a particular individual.

I wonder if the minister has any figures indicating the relapse rate of youth who are sentenced in adult court and serve time in adult correctional facilities. There is a debate ongoing as to the usefulness of more transfers of youth, young offenders into adult court. Some say that is tougher, whatever that means, I am not sure, in terms of consequences. I have serious questions as to what happens. The other side is that you hear the argument that youth want to be transferred into the adult court because it is easier, and the adult correctional facilities are not as rigorous, so I think this is an unclear area as to consequences. But I am wondering in terms of an individual youth who serves time in an adult facility whether the minister has either a review or statistics on the relapse rate.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we do not have statistics for the relapse rate of young offenders who may have been moved to adult court and then sentenced to adult facilities.

* (1700)

Mr. Mackintosh: I know that representations have been made about bringing in youth, children would be their definition, individuals under 12, into the youth justice system, and I believe the minister may have made some representations to her federal counterpart in that regard when it comes to changing the Young Offenders Act.

I am wondering if the minister has had discussions with her colleague the Minister of Family Services to address the challenges that must be met by the government of Manitoba in dealing with youth under age 12 who are acting out or engaged in what otherwise would be criminal activity, given that it would appear that no such amendments are on the horizon or foreseeable future.

Mrs. Vodrey: The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), again as part of our cabinet, is well aware of the position of this government and took part, obviously, in developing it in terms of some young people being brought into the justice system who are under 12, because it is our position as a government that there are clearly some young people who just should not walk away from the justice system, from what it means to be brought into the justice system, and I understand now that that position is shared by some other provinces also. So we may yet have some movement from the federal government. We do not know what round that may occur in.

The parliamentary committee is starting its trip across Canada. I understand that they were in Ontario last week or earlier this week, and this idea was put forward to them, this position was put forward to them. When they come to Manitoba, we will be putting this position forward again. So we are not sure yet what they are going to do with this, but so far they have not agreed to move ahead in this area.

The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) herself has some plans which she will be announcing and discussing when she feels the appropriate time is that may, in fact, assist in dealing with this, but I believe, as her colleague, it is really not my place to divulge or to discuss something which perhaps she has not yet. So I can just say that we have a very full discussion. I think one benefit of this government, and I have to say I feel very positively about this, is that there is full discussion among colleagues, full participation among colleagues. I think that that is always a benefit to the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that inmates in the adult correctional facilities receive a stipend or a pay cheque, if you will. Can the minister tell the committee what the fee or payment schedule is?

Mrs. Vodrey: The pay rates in the adult institution are pay rates received for work done by inmates, and the inmates have to work in order to receive this. The range is $2.20 a day at the low end to $3.90 a day at the high end, and the $3.90 a day is reserved--an inmate would have to work their way up to that particular pay. It is reserved for those seen as very responsible inmates. It may be in areas such as food services and also laundry.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee--Mr. Graceffo, I believe, is one of the individuals here. Is he seconded now to Corrections from Courts? I think that is where he was.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I said when I introduced Mr. Greg Graceffo that he is on a temporary assignment to Corrections, and I think that was made clear in the moment he was first introduced.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee what the job description or the scope of his activities is in Corrections?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the individual who is on temporary assignment comes to that assignment with 17 years of federal Corrections background. So when we experienced these three very difficult situations within three weeks--it was an incredible period of time for Corrections division to experience a riot and then within a week of that, less than a week, a job action and following that, there is a person charged with murder, and there has been a great deal of information sought by members opposite, by the public, and in order to accomplish one of our major goals, and that is to get people back to work and also to reopen our institution at Headingley--we required some additional work to be done within Corrections division, and so that is why Mr. Graceffo has moved over on temporary assignment to assist, though I have to say again, as I have said from the very beginning, our main goal has been to get our institution functioning again; that is, reopen and have staff return to work.

There is a great deal of effort in working on all of the committees, all the return-to-work committees from all across the province; there has been staffing, having to deal with any staffing issues which come up. There has still been a management of inmates issues; we have still been monitoring the numbers. As a result of those three instances, which occurred within such a short time, one right after the other, there has really been a very significant burden of work on Corrections officials and particularly senior Corrections officials.

* (1710)

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee where Bev Owens is currently working? Where is she assigned to?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that Bev Owens, who was the deputy superintendent at Portage Correctional Institution for women, was on secondment to Headingley and now is a supervisor at the CRC, Community Release Centre.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether there are any lawsuits being commenced by any inmates--what comes to mind are the protective custody inmates--as a result of the riot?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed that no statement of claim has been filed to commence a lawsuit.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister received any demand letters?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we would have to ask the member to clarify what he means by a demand letter. We are not clear about what his question is here.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware whether the government has received any letters from representatives of the inmates demanding settlement or demanding compensation for personal injury or otherwise as a result of the riot?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the senior officials who are here today tell me, not to their knowledge.

Mr. Mackintosh: The issue of the requirement that correctional officers have lunch with the inmates has been a considerable controversy, particularly, well, both before and after the riot. I wonder if the minister would express her views as to the reason that policy was implemented.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that this was a decision of Corrections division, that it was determined as part of the agreement that correctional officers would be paid to supervise during the lunch period. So, as my comments indicated when this first arose as an issue, the idea of a requirement of people to sit down on their own time and have lunch with inmates was simply not correct, that this did come about, I am told, as part of an agreement that people were seen as working at the time.

I was not part of the negotiations, but I am told that the negotiations were that people were then paid to supervise and during the supervision then they ate lunch with the inmates. Now, that, as the member knows, has been withdrawn and I will have to seek an update about what that means in terms of any supervision or any payment around the supervision.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister said that there is an ongoing analysis of her so-called boot camp. Would the minister describe what that analysis is and when the results will become known?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the evaluation will cover two areas, first of all, whether, in fact, the practice is following exactly what we have put forward in our policy and what we say we are doing and, secondly, to look at recidivism, to look at any evidence which we might be able to draw regarding our program having been instituted. My understanding is that that information should be available by the fall.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether all of the inmates at the Milner camp--it is called Ridge Point, I think--are receiving education?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, at Ridge Point, the educational program is available 12 months of the year. I am told that, depending upon individual assessment, that may determine an individual's participation in the educational program.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, if I suggested to the minister that there are times when perhaps seven out of 20 of the inmates or the residents are not receiving education, how would she respond to that?

* (1720)

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the numbers of young people participating in the education program do fluctuate. One of the primary reasons of the fluctuation is whether or not that young person is over 16 years of age. The requirement in the province is that young people under 16 attend an educational program, and those young people over 16, or 16 and over, are not necessarily required by law to attend an educational program. If they do not wish to attend the educational program, then I am told that they must participate in the work program.

But it was our view in setting up the 12-month, year-round schooling that it was very important for young people to participate in an educational program. Now, obviously, where an individual assessment may ask for some accommodation there, then obviously they would look at that. But that is why we provide the program 12 months of the year, because there is often a short time to rehabilitate, particularly a very young person, a young person under 16 who would go back into their community, would go back to school, and we really do not want them to have missed a whole lot. Where we can use in the summer, for example, time to assist that young person so that they are ready to return to a school program, then that is exactly what we will do.

Mr. Mackintosh: Do the minister's comments and descriptions of the education program also apply to the Manitoba Youth Centre?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, at the Manitoba Youth Centre it is our intention to have 12 months of the year schooling. I understand that currently there is a grievance relating to the educational program at the Youth Centre. Individuals have gone through the steps and then it is going to arbitration. However, it is our intention to provide that year-round 12 months of the year schooling.

Mr. Mackintosh: To the point, would the minister tell the committee whether there are individuals at the Youth Centre who are not receiving education, and if so, why not?

Mrs. Vodrey: Our approach at the Youth Centre is the same. There is a classroom in every cottage at the Youth Centre. I am told that the numbers may vary in terms of participation in the educational program, because at the Youth Centre we do have young people who are up to 20 years of age, and as I said, for young people 16 years of age and older the law does not require them to participate in an educational program, though it is certainly our intention that one is available to them and that that is what would be very beneficial.

If the member knows of some instance of where this is not happening, then I would really like to know about it. Genuinely, I would like to know about it if there is some case in which this is not occurring, because it is the intention of this government--especially when dealing with young people, who, as I said, will return to their communities, whom we want to be able to participate in further training programs, who may need literacy skills, who may need whatever kind of training is required--that those young people do participate and that training is available and that it is available 12 months of the year. So if there is a circumstance the member knows about he wants to talk to me about, I would be very happy to hear from him.

Mr. Mackintosh: How much money has been allocated by the Department of Justice to the Youth Secretariat for this fiscal year?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I will have to clarify the amount of money, and I will clarify how individual departments are funding when we sit next.

I think the important part is that we do have co-operation among four departments to work in the best interests of the young person and to break down some of those barriers that have existed in the past between departments. We have seen one of the first projects that was instituted was for the medically fragile young person, and that was where Health dollars were transferred to Education. I will have to check on and clarify as to whether this is on a project-by-project basis or what the dollar amount is.

Also, we do have a staffperson who is seconded to the Child and Youth Secretariat, and I am sure the member would want to calculate or factor that into any amount of money which is provided to the Child and Youth Secretariat through Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Further to a question from the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) the other day, does the minister now have the number, approximate is fine, of young offenders who have as a condition of their probation orders that they attend school?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, following the question by the honourable member for St. James, we endeavoured to get that information and I am told that we are not able to get it. There are approximately 1,800 on youth probation and, because we are not on a specifically computerized system to go through that and to find out how many of those 1,800 have as a condition of their probation attendance in an educational program, we have not been able to get that number.

* (1730)

Mr. Mackintosh: What ever became of Mr. Demers? I understand he is not with Corrections anymore.

Mrs. Vodrey: He is Assistant Deputy Minister of Corrections for the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Mackintosh: Who is in the position that Mr. Demers was in?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Ben Thiessen, by competition, is in that position now.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have no further questions under the Corrections appropriation in its entirety. If there are follow-up questions, I can direct them under the Executive Support line when we go back to there, I suppose, but just in light of the time constraints that are facing the Legislature right now, it is my intention to allow the Corrections appropriations under 4.4 to proceed to a vote, but I understand the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has a series of questions.

Whether or not we get through that, I guess, will be up to the committee tonight. It is my understanding that at nine o'clock in the morning the Committee of Supply will continue with the consideration of Justice, and I presume, if Corrections is finished, we will then go back to where we left off the other day on Executive Support.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Chair, the first question I have with regard to this line is--I gave notice, and I think this is an appropriate time. The RCMP have or are moving to automatic weapons. The Winnipeg Police Services already have moved to automatic weapons. The use of automatic weapons, for safe unloading of the weapons, require an unloading station.

Now, in all the buildings in the Winnipeg Police Services, they have unloading stations, but when officers go to the Remand Centre or other correctional facilities, there is no unloading station. Now, just in case the minister is not aware, these unloading stations look like a small garbage can lined with ballistic material that an officer can stick the automatic weapon into and take the last shell out, and there is no chance of an accidental discharge.

I understand there has been some discussions with the Winnipeg Police Service and the Justice Department about putting these in the Remand Centre, and I do not know at what point these discussions are. I understand the cost is not that great. Can the minister tell me, as a result of the RCMP also moving to this, if they will be looking at installing these in all adult correction facilities?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am informed by Corrections officials that this has not been raised at any institution other than the Remand Centre, and, as a result of that, we are acting on it at the Remand Centre. However, the point having been raised by the honourable member, we will examine it at our other institutions around the province and see what issues there may be between the police services and our institutions.

Mr. Kowalski: I would like to ask some questions in regard to the Restorative Resolutions program, and I know the minister, every time the subject is raised, has talked about the federal commitment to it, but is there a savings to the Province of Manitoba for these offenders if they go through a Restorative Resolutions program as opposed to custody?

What would be the cost, however you want to break it down, by month, by year, per prisoner, for a person in custody, as opposed to someone going to the Restorative Resolutions program?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I know the issue of the closing of a bed appears to be the argument put forward by the member for The Maples, but I am told that, in fact, to achieve a cost savings we really have to have a sufficient number of inmates going through the Restorative Resolutions program to actually close a unit, and that would then be where the cost savings would come.

But the cost savings of bed by bed do not appear to be providing us with that significant amount of savings. I think the member is wondering if that is really where we should be looking. So we have not yet closed a unit, and that is a significant point. Then I go back to saying that the legislation that governs the sentencing is federal, and that is where we would argue that this is a matter of joint responsibility, argued that previously, continue to argue that point.

* (1740)

Mr. Kowalski: Does Corrections have a cost per custody case in Corrections for Adult Corrections? What is the average cost of a person in custody in Manitoba? Is it $50,000 a year? Is it $70,000 a year? I know the media have reported a number of different figures, and I would like to get, while we have people from Adult Corrections, an accurate figure on what it costs to keep a person locked up for a year in Manitoba Corrections.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that the average per diem cost or daily cost for an inmate in our institutions is $90.48 a day, but that is exclusive of Government Services costs in terms of construction and maintenance costs.

Mr. Kowalski: A figure that was quoted in the paper for keeping a person in custody in Manitoba was $50,000 a year. Would that be a figure that the minister would say is in the realm of accuracy?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, according to our per diem cost, it comes out to, and this is a rounded-off figure, about $33,000 a year.

Mr. Kowalski: But, as the minister said, it does not include the capital cost expenditures and possibly looking at other overhead expenses, so would $50,000 be an inaccurate figure for what it costs to keep an offender locked up in a Manitoba correction facility?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I really cannot say. I can tell you that our per diem cost is considered very accurate. That comes from Justice. Other costs would come through Government Services. I can tell the member that Manitoba has the fourth lowest per diem in comparison with other provincial jurisdictions and the Correctional Service of Canada. So I think Manitoba has quite a good record on that.

Then when we come back to saying but, well, then would diverting into restorative justice reduce that cost, well, I guess we could divert a whole lot of people into that. The question is are they going to be the right people. In dealing with Restorative Resolutions, there is a narrow criterion that allows someone to participate in that program.

The people of Manitoba, I believe, have given us a message about limited criterion that they would be accepting of. With that limited criterion, we have not yet been able to achieve that threshold number that has allowed us to close a unit which might then result in savings. So though we can talk about per diem rates and we can talk about the amount it costs per year, the point is that if you want to save that $33,000 or whatever number the member is using, and just release people out, well, I guess you could do that, but our government is not taking that position. Again, we are supportive of a narrow criterion, and as a result of that criterion we have not yet been able to close a unit and achieve the savings that the member might expect.

Mr. Kowalski: An offender in the Restorative Resolutions program, what does it cost per offender to go through the Restorative Resolutions program?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that we do not have a per diem cost for an inmate's participation in Restorative Resolutions. What we have instead is, the program cost is our contribution. That is what I am able to talk about, and I tried to clarify what that contribution was when the question was asked in Question Period yesterday. It was a higher contribution than I gather was reported in the media.

Mr. Kowalski: On June 3, I copied something from the Internet from the Solicitor General in New Brunswick. It said that more effective alternatives to imprisoning offenders are at the heart of a three-year plan announced today by Solicitor General Jane Barry. The need for change is obvious, Barry said. Our crime rate is falling in Canada and in New Brunswick. In fact, New Brunswick's crime rate is 20 percent lower than the national rate yet 20 percent more of our citizens are sentenced to serve time in the provincial adult institutions. In many of these cases there was no risk to society, she added. It is the taxpayer who is punished when we unnecessarily send offenders to jail.

The minister said, there is little evidence to suggest that jail is a deterrent. For example, 87 percent of adult offenders have previous a criminal record. For many, incarceration is simply a revolving door, she explained. Programs that offer alternatives to custodial care for low-risk offenders have proven themselves effective. The document released by the Solicitor General, Achieving a Balance for Community and Correctional Services, points to the successes of provincial community-based correctional programs such as alternative measures, the fine option program, community service orders and the temporary absence program as proof that focusing on rehabilitation instead of simply incarcerating offenders reduces public risk.

The three-year plan outlines a series of alternatives to jail, all designed to help offenders become responsible citizens. The plan calls for reallocation of resources and utilization of new technologies and advanced correctional programs. The aim is to move from custody-based--

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly am looking forward to commenting on all the issues the member has brought forward but I wonder if it is appropriate to read the press release of another province into the Hansard of our government's records, and I wondered if you could check on that and give us a ruling.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. The honourable member can put on the record whatever he so chooses as long as it is within reason.

* * *

Mr. Kowalski: The aim is to move from custody-based to enhanced community-based services. This is not a press release, this is a document off the Internet.

The changes require a formalized system to determine appropropriate levels of supervision and the kinds of programs and counselling needed by low- and medium-risk offenders. A new risk needs assessment process developed in partnership with the University of New Brunswick's Centre for Criminal Justice in Saint John provides that kind of direction. The heart of the process is matching the right kinds of programs to the needs of the offender. This can include anything from anger management and spousal abuse programs to job readiness and skills training programs.

The plan calls for some changes to infrastructure, as well. For example, services at some institutions will be realigned to avoid duplication. Also included is phase-out of several other institutions, some identified as security risks. The reduction in adult beds plus a proposed reduction in youth group home beds will free up $5.4 million in operating costs.

* (1750)

The majority of these savings will be redirected into community based services, resulting in an increase of 83 percent over the current Community Corrections budget. The balance will be diverted to youth such as those in secured custody, youth with addictions, those in a new Intensive Supervision Program.

Just one example of an enhanced services is a second Portage for Youth, a highly successful substance abuse program planned for the Fredericton area this year, Barry said. The Department of the Solicitor General will be a partner in the delivery of this program.

The document also describes key roles played by new elements in New Brunswick's justice system including electronic integrated justice, electronic monitoring, the New Brunswick Youth Centre in the city of Miramichi, partnerships with nonprofit community based organizations providing needed expertise and a specially assigned person for women offenders

Together these elements will provide pieces of the puzzle aimed at creating a more modern crime reducing system while ensuring public safety, Barry said.

Approximately 150 employees will be affected by the change. Many of them will be redeployed within the department, while others will be offered early retirement and severance packages.

Barry noted that public support is crucial to successful implementation of the proposed changes.

Primarily, we are talking about offenders who qualify for release under criteria such as criminal history, nonviolent property-related offences, good employment history, willingness to provide community service work, plus positive police, community and family support mechanisms.

Violent and high risk offenders will always be confined in a secure custodial setting, she concluded.

Now, in this province they could save $5.4 million, they could add money to programs to deal with youth. If they could do this, and I am told by our staff who have talked to people in Corrections, the professionals, who their academic training, their philosophy and everything they have ever been taught says this is the direction to go, and they are very proud to work in the correction services in New Brunswick. They know this is the direction. It is in line with the revisions that are in C-41, and, in fact, as a police officer I know that I would feel much confident with someone I have arrested rather than going to Headingley or some other facility where they will come out meaner, angrier, probably better trained as a criminal, that I am going to be the one that is going to have to face that person.

Because we have this politically popular view as opposed to doing what professionals, people in Corrections across Canada are looking to as the right direction to go, where you will save taxpayers' money, put less people at risk, help the offender. Why do we keep butting our head against the wall with old ideas that are not working just to do what is politically expedient on the short term?

As I said, they are going to be saving $5.4 million. They are going to be closing down jails. They are going to be putting more programs into youth programs that work, that help the youth, not just punish for the sake of punishment, that will be corrective, restorative, that will make the community a safer place, not just be politically popular.

So I ask the minister why are we going in a direction that goes against most academic studies, most of the reforms that any progressive correctional service is doing in Canada, that professionals are saying is the right way to go. Do we go with what the professionals, the academics at the research, say is the right way to go or do we go with what is politically popular?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I believe, I have approximately 10 minutes so I will speak as long as I can, and then may I carry on tomorrow? Thank you very much.

First of all, it is very interesting that this Manitoban brings forward with just such wholehearted support, would like to just totally transplant a program that comes from another part of Canada right in here, no made-in-Manitoba solution, no made-in-Manitoba thinking, no regard for the people of the province where he lives, just pick it right up from New Brunswick, a totally different province--

Point of Order

Mr. Kowalski: I think the minister is questioning my motivation for bringing forward this. I am a Manitoban. I was born and raised in Manitoba. I have worked as a police officer in Manitoba for 20 years. I do not think it is parliamentary acceptable to question the motivation or the reason that I bring forward this matter. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. If we could just allow the member to finish his point of order.

Mr. Kowalski: I believe that from past experience, we do not question the motivation or the reason that a member brings forward a matter that is considered out of order.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I believe if you check the record, you will see that the member took this program and said, if you did this program here you would save $5.4 million. He was specific as to the amount. He was specific as to the end product. The information brought forward from the member for The Maples spoke very specifically about transplanting a program from New Brunswick onto the province of Manitoba. That is clearly what he said.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister. After carefully listening to the point of order and the minister's statement on the point of order--I was carefully listening to both members, both on your presentation and the minister's reply, and it is clearly not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue her reply.

Mrs. Vodrey: So, as I said, our government is a great believer in made-in-Manitoba solutions. Our government is a believer in looking at what is the requirement within our province. Who is it that we are dealing with within our province? What is it that is required by the people of Manitoba?

The province of New Brunswick has a totally different population distribution, is an entirely different province. Manitoba is a province with one large city than another city that is a fairly large city, smaller areas and very much a rural-based province. We are a province of approximately a million people. We span a great deal of geographical area. So the programming that we bring into place within our province is very specific for the province of Manitoba. If the member is so incredibly happy and thrilled about the program for the people of New Brunswick there in New Brunswick, then I think that perhaps is the place for him, because I do not think that you can take a program and just totally transplant it here.

Mr. Chair, the member brings forward a program in Justice from the province of New Brunswick, and if that is so good then perhaps he would like to inform the Minister of Education about their educational directions. I understand he is a former school trustee. He may not be quite as happy with all of those in our province, but you know if they are doing that right, then perhaps we should lay that as a template right directly on our educational system. We should lay the health program directly on our system.

Mr. Chair, it is simply not our view.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., this section of the Committee of Supply will recess until 7:30 p.m., at which time we will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Housing and the Seniors Directorate. It is my understanding that the Department of Urban Affairs has been completed.