JUSTICE

* (0900)

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply come to order please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

Order, please. By leave, the committee has temporarily set aside Resolution 4.2 and 4.3 and is considering Resolution 4.4 at this time, Corrections.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We are still picking up where we left off yesterday. Is that where we are now? [interjection] I am sorry, I had trouble hearing.

Mr. Chairperson: Yes, we are dealing with--we are just about to pass Corrections.

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I still was in the process of answering the member for The Maples.

Mr. Chair, I feel that this is important to continue because the member raised a position from another province which he felt strongly should be brought into Manitoba. I will not take the full time allotted to speak on this, but I will just raise a couple of final points.

I certainly have talked with that minister, most recently at the ministers of Justice conference, have had personal contact with the direction that province is going, and I do not offer any comment about what they are doing in their own province. However, in our province, that is where my responsibility lies. It lies to the people of Manitoba, and that is what our government makes decisions based on, our own province. So, Mr. Chair, we certainly do support for some people who have been convicted the process of mediation. We have, in fact, funded for the first time Westman mediation, and we have for some time funded a mediation program in the city of Winnipeg. We have also continued with our commitment to Restorative Resolutions, and I spent some time speaking about that in the Estimates yesterday.

Sentencing is done by the court, and they sentence according to what is available to them. It is our view that, certainly, high-risk offenders still pose a threat to the community and that there must be a place for high-risk offenders to be placed in institutions with a significant consequence to them. In the area of mediation, I believe Manitoba has taken a very significant role. In fact, I understand we have been a leader in that area. I am quite interested in the process, have attended conferences since I have been Minister of Justice on the process of mediation, where and how it can be used. I think that there are some opportunities in a number of areas, including youth, where that may be used and perhaps has some possibilities.

But I do not take the same position, our government does not take the same position as the province of New Brunswick does in terms of their movement in a very significant way into people leaving the institutions and being dealt with entirely by the community, though the member does know that we do feel that within the community, community participation is important, and that is the way that Manitoba has framed our concept of inmates being dealt with within the community, and that is through community participation.

I think that it is very clear that no one can solve the problems alone. It has been our position from the beginning, and in the process of problem solving we need the community. We need community participation. We are supportive of community justice committees. We are supportive of youth justice committees. We have supported mediation. We have supported Restorative Resolutions, but it is not our intention at this time to move in the same direction as New Brunswick has stated, and that is based on our view of our province and the people of our province and what is required here.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I think I have to respond to some of the comments that the minister made last night near the end of our Estimates procedure.

One of the things she mentioned was the fact that if the member--referring to me--likes the New Brunswick system, perhaps I should move to New Brunswick, and I do not think that was very appropriate. I do not think anybody owns a good idea. To bring forward, whether it is looking to the U.S. for boot camps and to adjust it for, in the minister's words, made-for-Manitoba boot camp or taking this program--and the Restorative Resolutions is a made-in-Manitoba program that very much echoes what is being done in New Brunswick--also, whether it is her government following Saskatchewan's lead about balanced budget legislation, taking a seed of an idea, making it to suit Manitoba, I agree with the minister 100 percent, that New Brunswick and Manitoba are two different provinces with different geographic situations.

We are a very large province with a population based in one urban centre basically, 60 percent of our population, but nobody owns a good idea. I think just the research, the best thinking in Corrections shows this is the direction that it is going. You save money, it is more effective and, in fact, it protects the public. Less people are at risk if you have an effective Corrections system. I realize that it is very difficult because it is not politically popular to put money into jails, to put money into reforms, because for people who have not researched it, who do not understand the system, the knee-jerk reaction is lock them up and throw the key.

* (0910)

It rings true in many people's ears and politically it is very popular, but in fact it does not work. We have been banging our head against the wall for a long time. In fact, in her own Corrections department, I was allowed to do a tour of Headingley, thanks to the minister's staff. I met with Larry Krocker on the 29th of November 1994, and at that time Mr. Krocker indicated that he was moving to a relapse prevention and cognitive-based programming versus education and healing. So this was something that one of the minister's staff was doing. I am sure the minister has control over her department and knew the direction that Larry Krocker was going in with this programming. He indicated that he had received support for the directions in programming that he was going to from Mr. Wolfe. This was the direction, so I know the best thinking in Corrections goes with this, and I know it is always very difficult for people in Corrections to balance what they believe, both philosophically and from the research, with what is politically acceptable by their political masters. I know it is always difficult for them.

The minister uses terms like made-in-Manitoba. Allan Rock, referring to the minister's performance in Manitoba, says it is always nice to have words when ideas fail and, you know, rigorous confinement, made-in-Manitoba solution, in-your-face justice. It is nice, those words always--the minister has an ability to do phrases that catch the public's ears that are politically popular. But I know that many people in Corrections, when they meet throughout Canada, they look at things like what is happening in New Brunswick. The staff in Corrections in New Brunswick are motivated. They are interested in what is happening. They are looking at saving, as I said, $5.4 million from law facilities and putting it into youth programs, into programs to counsel young people who are substance abusers, programs for men who are abusing their spouses. The minister also said that I want to just pick up a program from New Brunswick and bring it here. No. Nobody owns a good idea, and her government has looked, as it should, as any intelligent person--we do not have to reinvent the wheel all over again in every department, in every area. I was bringing forward something that looks like it is going to work very well. It looks like it is the right direction.

I was not saying, bring that whole program here and drop it here. What I was suggesting was that we go in that direction, as Restorative Resolutions does go in that direction, of looking at something that is effective, that is going to keep the people in the community safer, that is going to keep their property safer, because as long as these people are going through the swinging doors of our justice system it does not matter if you give them the lash, it does not matter if you give them bread and water, we still have reoffending. Where Restorative Resolutions and what is being done in New Brunswick are saving money, money that could be put into hospitals, into youth programs, into abuse programs.

That is why I was bringing that forward. The minister has always said that she is always interested to hear positive suggestions from the opposition. She has always asked the opposition to bring forward ideas, and it is a made-in-Manitoba solution because I was made in Manitoba. You know, how does the seed of an idea come? If I read a report that comes from some other jurisdiction and I bring forward that idea. Where do the different ideas of the minister's department come from? Is there an embargo on reading reports or on ideas from other provinces, from other jurisdictions? No. Now with the Internet--and this is where this was gleaned from, a review of information on the Internet in Corrections.

So my question at this time to the minister is, she has used the term rigorous confinement quite often since she has become the Justice minister, can she define what, in her definition in her mind, rigorous confinement is. Can she define that?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, let me just make a few comments, again, based on what the member for The Maples has said about made-in-Manitoba. Frankly, I hope he does not move away. You know, I mean, he seems so sold on the idea of what another province was doing, it sounded like he might. I hope he does not. I agree too that nobody owns a good idea, but I also believe that in assessing the idea you have to assess it on behalf of your own province, and you have to assess how you will put it forward.

As a result of Bill C-41 and other changes, provinces will have the opportunity to make some of the changes that New Brunswick is moving towards. So this is not news. You know, the member appears to find this as having been a great enlightenment. Well, this is not really news, and there was discussion of this at the Justice ministers' meeting. But what is not his responsibility but is the responsibility of the government is to make decisions on behalf of the people of their province. People who sit in opposition are free to blue-sky all kinds of ideas without ever being required to apply them, without ever being required to take responsibility to actually put them forward or to make them an idea for your own province. That is my responsibility as minister and our government's responsibility.

So I am well aware of the ideas in New Brunswick, and also some other provinces' move; and, as I said to him, obviously, we have some support because we have provided additional funding, new funding, in the area of mediation to Westman mediation. Never funded before. Funded now in this year.

The member really spent quite a while talking about what he considers to be words and not actions, and then he referenced his friend Allan Rock. So now I know where it is coming from. Now I have an idea that--you know, Mr. Rock who has been unable to fulfill what Canadian people have asked for has had some attempt to talk to the member opposite, who, I know, when he looks at the record of this government and achievement of this government in terms of what changes only the federal government can make but were identified within this province and identified first, stalking, for instance, which Mr. Rock allowed to lapse in the last parliamentary session--I understand it has finally reintroduced in this session. But, you know, not much action there. That is the government of Manitoba continually defining the problem, bringing it forward in the area of the Criminal Code, forcing the federal government to acknowledge it, working with women's groups across the country to deal with that.

In the area of disclosure of records, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) talked about that. That was raised at our last ministerial conference. A position was taken by this government, it was probably the only issue which was covered as a follow-up to our ministerial conference, because it is this government that says that in the area of disclosure of records that, first of all, there has to be protection for women, and that the proposal put forward by Allan Rock was just too limiting and is not going to provide protection. So, in the area of dealing with the federal government, we have seen a lot of nonaction where this government has put forward the important ideas. Now, if nobody owns a good idea, then I do not know why the federal government is not willing to move on these ideas which make sense, because if one followed the member's idea through, and point of view through, then we would have the federal government acting to make women safer, in particular, which they have not yet decided to do.

If no one owns a good idea, I appreciate that because it was this government's maintenance enforcement bill that we saw totally reflected, finally, in the federal government's bill. The federal government had the power to make changes. They took quite a long time, but when they did, we were very pleased that they followed our lead, the first province in this country to garnish pension benefit credits. The tough legislation that we put forward has now been mirrored by the federal government, and we are very pleased that they decided that nobody owned a good idea so that they in fact would take it and put it in place for themselves.

* (0920)

Now we see in the area of parental responsibility--which, by the way, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) does not support if one can believe the media. Again, I give him the benefit of the doubt there. But where the federal government decided that it does not want to put parental responsibility into the Young Offenders Act, that is not our view. Our view is parents do have a responsibility on behalf of their child. We have introduced legislation that speaks to that. If nobody owns a good idea, we agree with that. We understand other provinces are moving in the same way. We understand other provinces are moving in the same way as our CNAC program, our community notification process.

All of those things originated here in this province by this government, and that member sits there and dares to say that it is all talk, that there has just been talk when the action on the part of this government has been seen across this country and is now--in his own words, we have never tried to own a good idea; we have shared it. We see other provinces across this country moving into adopt what has been put forward first in Manitoba. So I think when we speak about who is talking and who is acting, this government's record of action is very significant on behalf of the public safety of Manitobans and has been viewed across the country as a series of actions that others, including the federal government, have chosen to adopt.

The member asks specifically now about rigorous confinement, and rigorous confinement was a term that was placed for changes in expectations and also practice in our adult correctional institutions, because it was a concern of this government that there was idle time. It was a concern of this government that things might have been seen as just easy, and so we developed a system of rigorous confinement. Nothing is ever seen as completely finished. We will continue to adapt in our area of rigorous confinement, but the term “rigorous confinement” and the purpose of rigorous confinement is to make it more difficult and more challenging for inmates serving their sentences within our institutions, so that they do not just have that idle time, because that idle time is not helpful for those inmates.

What it means is more austere conditions. It means a reduction in some areas of privileges. It means structured work programs. It means clear rules and that there also should be consequences for negative behaviour. There are six components in the area of rigorous confinement that have been implemented. It was our policy to have these implemented, and I expect that this practice has been implemented in our adult institutions, and if it has not, I would like to know.

The components are a reduction in inmate idleness and increased work activity for inmates; increased community service work; reduction in inmate privileges at all institutions; changes to the earned remission system; reduction of the temporary absences to require a longer period of time before temporary absences, where people were eligible for them. The other area is in the area of pornography. A great deal of concern was expressed that although pornography was not allowed within our institutions, what was available over the counter to other people had been available in the past in our institutions. That just did not seem to be appropriate to this government, so this government changed that.

There are a number of basic components in rigorous confinement. They are underpinned by principles. We expect that they are being practised. I expect that they are being practised, and if the member, as I said, has some reason to believe that the practice is different than the policy, then I certainly would like to know because this government's position is on that policy.

Mr. Kowalski: First of all, I speak for myself. I have not spoken to Allan Rock, and it was not his words I was speaking. It was my own words. It was funny because the minister just talked about in government; you know, she has the responsibility to put into practice, unlike the opposition, and I guess it is the same at the federal level. There was a Conservative government in government prior to Allan Rock, and I guess they could be criticized for all the things that the minister mentioned that they had not done yet, but that is just political rhetoric, and I do not think it really accomplishes too much at this point.

When we were talking about Restorative Resolutions yesterday, we talked about it being a pilot project. Many times in the past when the province has initiated pilot projects, whether it was with victims' services, with the Winnipeg Police Service, then the opposition would criticize it at the end of the funding for not continuing funding of programs that received positive reports.

The minister would often say, well, that is why you have a pilot project, to prove the worth and then to look for alternative funding, those responsible to do the funding. Now, if the administration of Corrections is a provincial responsibility and the Restorative Resolutions project is proven, as the interim report indicates a very successful project, what will the minister do about incorporating this so that it stops being a pilot project and becomes part of the correctional system?

Mrs. Vodrey: I do not want to belabour the point about Allan Rock other than to say it was in the member's own comments that he said Allan Rock said this. That is why I said this is obviously Allan Rock's view so I do not want to belabour it, but that was in the member's own words.

Now let us talk a little bit about Restorative Resolutions. The province has entered into some pilot projects and, usually, clearly spelled out in that is--part of the arrangement of that is if it turns out to be positive that alternative sources of funding will be found, and that the province may in fact start to phase out its money while another funder picks up. That has been a part of the programming, some of the pilot programs that we have put in place, but the federal government in participating in this program has a shared responsibility. They do have a shared responsibility.

Now the member does not seem to want to stand up for his own province here. This is what is a problem for the people of Manitoba, in that where there is clearly a shared responsibility, why would the member turn to the taxpayers of Manitoba and say, oh well, but the feds, we do not want to bother them with this and so you will pick up everything. This is a shared responsibility. We are standing up to the federal government and saying to the federal government, you have a role here, you should participate. That is clearly our position on behalf of the people of Manitoba, and it is not the position of the member opposite. I will not even speculate why that may be the case but it is not our position. So we will be saying to the federal government, as I am saying now, we think you have a role here. However, I did say that because we are interested in the program, because the evaluation appears to be positive, that we are pursuing with the John Howard Society how this program might be continued if and when the federal government again drops their funding.

* (0930)

Mr. Kowalski: I will repeat the question. My question was that prisoners sentenced to two years less a day are provincial responsibility. They go to provincial jails. This program addresses prisoners who are sentenced to two years less a day, and once this project has been evaluated and shown successful, when does it stop being a pilot project and become a part of the Adult Corrections system in Manitoba?

If it is going to save money, if it is going to keep people re-offending less often--and the interim report has been very positive--when does it then become part of the community youth corrections, when do probation officers start doing this job, or do we continue to have an outside agency? As a pilot project, yes, but once it proves prisoners sentenced to two years less a day are a provincial responsibility--and I will not even reply to the minister's comments about standing up for Manitoba because again that is political rhetoric but from my understanding--and the minister can correct me if I am wrong about that, that the province is responsible for all those prisoners and this program addresses those, so my question is when does it become part of the Manitoba Justice Adult Corrections system? When does it stop being a pilot project?

Mrs. Vodrey: The only political rhetoric here is political rhetoric about the federal government. The final evaluation around Restorative Resolutions I understand is only just being received, has not been reviewed with federal Corrections and has not had a chance--our Corrections people have not had a chance to review it either. I am told that the criterion is for those people who would ordinarily serve a sentence of nine months or more, which means potentially that certainly could involve people from federal institutions.

The criterion is one for Restorative Resolutions which clearly says in that area that there should be a shared responsibility. Then I am also told that even in terms of our provincial institutions, when inmates are out on parole, the federal government are partners with us, they are partners in the parole costs, they are partners in our provincial program through day parole, which is supervised by federal parole officers and granted by the federal parole board, so there is a partnership which is there already, and this program allows for the availability in the future for Restorative Resolutions to apply to those inmates who may be in federal institutions. Therefore, this government has to stand up for this province. We have to stand up for this province and make it clear to the federal government that this is a partnership, and that they do have a role to play here, and that we expect their further participation.

Mr. Kowalski: I thank the minister for that answer. It is much more useful than the rhetoric she gave before. If it is information, it is useful, so thank you. For the prisoners that will be provincial responsibility, if the federal government does withdraw--and I do not speak for the federal government in any way, shape or form--and the report is positive, can this program be incorporated within Adult Corrections through the probation offices, that probation officers would do the work that is presently being done by the workers in Restorative Resolutions, that they could bring forward sentencing plans that would keep offenders out of locked facilities--at great expense to the taxpayers of Manitoba--that would keep offenders from reoffending, would keep the public safer; would keep their property safer? Could the minister move in that direction if, as the interim report showed, that this is a positive program for the prisoners that Manitoba is responsible for?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I said, it is a little bit premature to make a commitment in Estimates here. However, I think the commitment of our dollar amount including our staff seconded is a commitment, certainly for now, and that we are interested. I am not able to provide the member at this time with anything further other than the full discussion that we have had, and we will now be looking at the assessment and be talking to the federal government.

Mr. Kowalski: Just one clarification. The minister mentioned a dollar amount in addition to staff. I understand the provincial commitment was the salaries of the probation officers involved. Were there additional dollars other than staff salaries?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, there is an additional $30,000 in kind in addition to the two probation officers.

Mr. Kowalski: The $30,000 in kind, what would be the in kind? Is it clerical support? What is the in-kind contribution from the province?

Mrs. Vodrey: Some of the in kind is access to photocopying stationery, some clerical support, office supplies, and also some training. The total value, I understand, of the province's commitment is approximately $120,000.

Mr. Kowalski: I will move to another subject. Has the minister received any recommendations, reports or suggestions from any judges in regard to electronic monitoring?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, there has been contact at the departmental level, and also I had some discussions with the members of the judiciary. They have not put forward a proposal to me anyway, and I understand not to the department, but we have had discussions about electronic monitoring and where and how it might be used. I have expressed my interest in looking at electronic monitoring particularly on the bail side. I am very interested in the fact, as I said yesterday, that where the federal government will not look at the reverse onus in the Criminal Code where the safety of the victim is a concern that then there must be some additional way that we can look at protecting the victim. So that is why one of our first areas of interest is in the bail side, and then, though we are interested in looking at inmate release, we are not interested in looking at it for early release.

Mr. Kowalski: So are there any policy analysts or any people from the minister's staff who are doing research on other jurisdictions, and is there a report that will be created and given to the minister as a result of that research?

* (0940)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, we do have an individual within Corrections who is doing research. However, what is provided will be provided as advice to the minister.

Mr. Kowalski: When I had the tour of Headingley with the former superintendent, Larry Krocker, one of the problems he identified was fetal alcohol syndrome victims as prisoners being a problem that they continue to grapple with, and at that time he said they were still grappling for a solution and a policy what to do with fetal alcohol syndrome prisoners. Now, I know from personal experience, we have many young people coming up through the system that are going to end up in Adult Corrections. Is any work being done or is there a policy being developed to deal with these prisoners?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that it has been identified by Corrections as fairly recently we have seen these people in the adult system, that there is in fact a provincial committee within the department that is looking at developing programming on both the youth and on the adult side.

Mr. Kowalski: What is the name of the committee, and who are the members of that committee?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the name of the committee is the Program Implementation and Training Committee. The committee is co-chaired by Wayne Scarth and Louis Goulet, and it has members from Adult Corrections, from youth Corrections and from Probation. It is quite a big committee, and the exact names of the members are not available right now.

Mr. Kowalski: I thank the minister for that information.

As I said earlier, Larry Krocker indicated when I visited Headingley that he was trying to move relapse prevention from education and healing to a cognitive-based programming process, that cognitive-based programming was what he supported. Now, with Larry Krocker no longer there as superintendent, will the minister be encouraging the new superintendent, once Headingley is reopened, to continue in this direction, or will we see a change going back to the education and healing process for relapse prevention?

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, first of all, the relapse prevention programming is in place in all of our institutions. We are using the cognitive-based program, the cognitive behavioural programming. It is dealt with through the criminal thinking errors programming, which deals with the criminals' thinking, their attitude and their values. They have to identify what it is that got them into trouble, and they have to develop a control plan to have that not happen again or to avoid it. The current superintendent at Headingley is continuing that policy and, as I said, it is a policy within all of our institutions now for relapse prevention.

Mr. Kowalski: Mr. Krocker at the time said in dealing with the youth gangs that his method was not to deal with the gangs head-on because that was just confrontational and he was creating a youth program. Will the minister be giving direction to the new superintendent to continue not to deal with youth gangs head-on, as Mr. Krocker's view was? Will he be continuing with Mr. Krocker's policy or a different policy dealing with youth gangs in Headingley?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we do have a divisional policy which deals with gangs, and that policy is obviously developed and evaluated on a regular basis. I will not be committing to laying out any blueprint for how we deal with gangs in any of our institutions on the records of this House, simply because I do not believe that it is going to be productive. If the member has an interest, I would make the offer considering your professional background and so on. If you have an interest, then I would be certainly happy to talk with you, but I do not believe that on the record here is going to be helpful to anyone.

Mr. Kowalski: What I am realizing from this line of questioning is that, although Mr. Krocker had certain views and philosophies, there is a policy throughout Adult Corrections that is in place, and that although Reg Forester or whoever takes over will put their personal touch on it, they have to comply with the guidelines in Adult Corrections. So this line of questioning is making that clear in my mind.

* (0950)

Another subject that I brought forward to Mr. Krocker, because a number of guards had contacted me, is concern about infectious disease control and specifically prisoners with TB. In light of what we have recently heard about the Health Sciences Centre with a nurse contracting TB, Mr. Krocker's philosophy was that, rather than have special policies dealing with prisoners who have infectious diseases, the guards should treat all prisoners as if they did. In light of what I have been hearing about the Health Sciences Centre about the need for isolation rooms and the spread of TB, is this the correct policy to have? If you have a prisoner with TB in a correction facility in Manitoba, the idea that there is an assumption that all prisoners have infectious disease, does that mean that they would all be in isolation rooms?

It is unlike AIDS where the transmission is confined to exchange of bodily fluids. TB can be airborne, it can be through repeated casual contact. The idea of a guard eating in a cafeteria or even searching or being with a prisoner daily in the same area can expose not only him--and the guards who approached me, their main concern was not for themselves; it was the concern that they would take it home to their spouses and children.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

In view of what has been happening at the Health Sciences Centre, is there a need to review the policy on dealing with prisoners with infectious diseases in Adult Corrections?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, two parts I guess to the answer. First of all, the universal precaution which was spoken about by the former superintendent is in fact the current thinking across Canada in terms of dealing with inmates and dealing with infectious diseases, so I think it is important to set a context to the thinking and that this is correctional thinking across the country to deal with this serious issue.

I understand we have a comprehensive policy in the area of infectious diseases. We have training in the area of infectious diseases and we consult with and are guided by the Department of Health when an infectious disease such as TB may be found. Our physician sees cases, referrals are made, so in that specific area, again, we are guided by our own Department of Health, by the physician who sees the cases, but the general policy of universal precaution is one which is used in our institutions and I understand is the current correctional thinking across the country. I raise that because there has been a question about where provinces may vary depending upon their own needs to modify a policy and what is in general the current thinking which may in fact be the most helpful in terms of these people who are professionals. We do send people, I understand, as well, to the health conference and it is on an annual basis to also find out what the latest information and research is so that we can be well aware of it here in Manitoba for our benefit.

Mr. Kowalski: Corrections staff, at one time I know when I was starting the police force, one of the requirements was that you take a chest x-ray so you could show that you did not have TB. I do not know if that is one of the things that is done in Corrections now, but is there any allowance for staff who have a concern to be examined on a routine basis? Have there been a number of staff who have had positive tests for TB in the past year?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that to our knowledge and to the knowledge of the senior Corrections people here today, there has been no one who has had a positive test. Where somebody suspects that they may have been exposed to an infectious disease such as TB, they can be immediately referred to a doctor or see their own physician and just follow up right away.

* (1000)

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Chairperson: Before we proceed, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have from Heyes School, forty-five Grade 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Struthers. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

Mr. Kowalski: I am not too sure of the correct names, but I understand at Headingley there were two inmate organizations, an inmate residents council, and then was it a native clan? What are the correct names of the two inmate organizations recognized by Corrections in Headingley?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that in the past there were two committees. Those committees have been disbanded. They were disbanded about two years ago. The reason was that there appeared to be some affiliation with gangs and that these groups were not necessarily speaking for the general inmate population. Now the mechanism is through a series of range representatives and that, when we want to find out what the view is on certain issues, they are canvassed unit by unit through these range representatives.

Mr. Kowalski: I imagine there is no sense discussing that further here at Estimates because I would imagine that would be part of Judge Hughes's review, possibly looking at that, whether that had any effect on the situation at Headingley prior to the riot. I know the official opposition critic would like to move on to other areas, and I have many questions in other areas, so although with Adult Corrections we could on quite a lengthy time further on it, especially as I have further questions on Headingley, but I think it has been covered by the official opposition at length.

I just want to ask the minister one more question about Restorative Resolutions. Has the minister read the report by Melanie Nimmo, University of Winnipeg, dated March 9, 1995, entitled Official Attitudes Concerning Community Intervention in which it researches the community's acceptance of the Restorative Resolutions project?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, I have not read it, although senior Corrections officials tell me that they have read it. They have told me it is somewhat of a supplementary document that was passed along; to their knowledge, it does not make any specific recommendations.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 4. Corrections (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $639,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $287,700--pass.

4.(b) Adult Corrections (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $27,636,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,022,700--pass; (3) External Agencies and Halfway Houses $336,800; (4) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($80,000).

4.(c) Correctional Youth Centres (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $9,465,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $984,000--pass.

4.(d) Community Corrections (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,376,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,285,700--pass; (3) Program Development $1,228,000--pass.

Resolution 4.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $54,182,900 for Justice, Corrections, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

We will now revert back to Resolution 4.2 Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,840,800.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It has come to our attention that nonmolestation orders and that process can result in considerable harassment to--the circumstance we are aware of--a woman whose former partner continues to seek nonmolestation orders against her without any apparent basis. Of course then she suffers a financial cost in addition to the continuing harassment.

I am wondering if the minister has considered this difficult area to determine whether there can be some checks and balances put in so that there is an incentive and a clear policy and a value expressed that frivolous or vexatious nonmolestation orders cannot be tolerated. Whether that would include a consideration of significant cost being assessed against anyone doing this or whether given a history of pursuing such orders without a basis, there could be some prevention of further filing. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that this matter is probably best discussed when we get to the Courts appropriation under 5.(a) Court Services. So if the member can wait till staff comes then they may have a greater knowledge of this as a difficulty.

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to introduce the staff who have now joined me from the Department of Justice; Mr. Pat Sinnott, the Executive Director of Finance and Administration, Mr. Mike Watson who is the Regional Director of Regional Prosecutions and Mr. Rob Finlayson who is the Acting Director of Winnipeg Prosecutions.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am disappointed the minister cannot deal with that issue here. I have one other question on, essentially, dealing with violence against women. We are becoming aware increasingly of breaches of probation orders that do not result in consequences, whether it is at the police end and they view the matter not serious enough or at the prosecution end. Of course here we are dealing with Prosecutions. I know that probation is an alternative to jail, and sometimes you can understand why people are saying put these guys in jail alone, because they are frustrated with the responsiveness of the justice system to breaches of probation.

I am wondering if the minister has considered the department's policy on how it prioritizes breaches of orders of probation and how it will prosecute those.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, well, as the member knows, the laying of the charge is the responsibility of the police, and they would have to make that decision. However, I can tell you that from the Prosecutions side where the charge is laid, I am told that our approach is a very vigorous approach and that we are particularly concerned in matters of domestic violence. The senior staff who are here now assure me that that is the position and the practice for our Department of Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there a Crown attorney available to the police around the clock to deal with questions of charges in domestic violence matters?

* (1010)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that to start with in the city of Winnipeg, all the senior Crowns are available on that 24-hour basis, including the director, and that the police do phone and do make those calls for the assistance of the Crown.

I am told that outside the city of Winnipeg, from the Director of Regional Prosecutions, that the same applies and that the police do have the phone numbers of the senior Crowns, and they do make those phone calls, and the advice of Crowns is available.

Mr. Mackintosh: How long has that policy been in place?

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, Mr. Chair, I have certainly had it made clear to me that Crown attorneys are not ever restricted by certain hours of work and that that has always been the availability to the police, to have the opportunity to speak to Crowns on a 24-hour basis, as needed.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has that policy been communicated to the City of Winnipeg Police Services?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, to the knowledge of the individuals sitting here with me, the answer is yes, that the phone numbers are circulated and that the police do call, so it sounds not only is the policy in place but the practice is being followed, as well.

If the member has a concern about it, if, in fact, he has heard that this is not the case or that there is some difficulty with this, then I would be happy to know about that, because, obviously, the people here, our intention is that the policy and practice be followed.

Mr. Mackintosh: I refer the minister to the evidence of Inspector Biener of the City of Winnipeg Police Services at the Lavoie inquiry where this issue was raised. I ask the minister whether she has now put in place, following my question on the first day of the session, a comprehensive mechanism to respond to the recommendations of Judge Collerman in the inquest report into the death of Sarah Dawn Kelly.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, there is a process in place; individuals have been identified to follow up on the recommendations. The police, I am told, have agreed to co-operate, and, as the member knows, within that inquest report there were also some specific recommendations to be made to the federal government.

I took a copy of the report to the recent meeting of ministers of Justice, federal, provincial and territorial, and read into the record of that meeting the recommendations that came from the inquest report, including that pedophiles be placed on the high-risk offenders list or within the high-risk offender category, clearly known, and that peace bonds be extended beyond one year. I have not heard back yet what the federal government has decided to do on that, but I think it is very important to tell the people of Manitoba that that request was taken seriously and was taken directly to that meeting.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether any of the recommendations of the inquest report have been rejected at this point by the province, and when can we expect the recommendations to be fulfilled?

Mrs. Vodrey: To our knowledge, none of the recommendations have been rejected, and each of the recommendations has been specifically identified. As I said, who is going to take responsibility for that has been identified, and a time line has been identified for each of those recommendations. It appears that for many of the recommendations the time line is September 1, though there are recommendations in which the time line is July 1. I see some recommendations in which the time line is May '96 and also June 1996. Again, the time lines do vary depending upon the amount of research. I see that there are some in which there are time lines of November 1, 1996. I believe there is only one which is beyond that to December 1, 1996. So, by and large, most of the recommendations are expected to be in place with the action taken by September 1. I believe there are just two which appear to be taking a little bit longer, and there is one in November and one in December.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister is reading from a document. Would the minister share that document with the committee?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, Mr. Chair, that simply has taken the recommendations. It has identified who in our department will be working on it. It is simply a report to the minister to make sure that I have a very direct understanding of who will be in charge of what issues and that I am able to make sure that they are in fact completed. So it is considered advice to the minister.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has any change been made in the prosecutions policy or staffing with regard to auto theft in the last year?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there is one Crown attorney who has now been specifically assigned to deal with auto theft. That person liaises with the Winnipeg Police Services and their auto theft unit and that is now in practice.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that rather than one person dedicated, there are actually several that are doing this auto theft prosecution. Is my understanding correct?

* (1020)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that that individual does not do this alone, but that individual is the person who assesses and co-ordinates the cases and makes sure that they, again, have been assessed.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, would the minister confirm though that auto theft prosecutions are done by several prosecutors?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, our commitment to the people of Manitoba was that there would be a Crown attorney who would, in this case, co-ordinate all of the cases, make sure that the case law was available so that there is a co-ordination, so that there is a liaison. Though other Crowns appear in court on auto theft, they go into court armed with the information, the case law that has been provided by this co-ordinator, with information that has been able to be supplied by this co-ordinator. So we have certainly turned our attention, as promised, to the area of auto theft.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the course of hearings on the Lavoie inquiry, the senior prosecutor in the Family Violence Court made several recommendations. Would the minister tell the committee whether that prosecutor had advanced those recommendations to the minister before appearing at the Lavoie inquiry?

Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that Justice Schulman has made it very clear that he is seeking personal recommendations from individuals appearing before the Lavoie inquiry, and he is seeking those recommendations in their personal capacity. Justice Schulman will then evaluate those recommendations and will provide recommendations to us then when he has had a chance to evaluate. So we are looking forward to Justice Schulman's report. Again, this province took the step of calling the inquiry, and we will be looking forward to the recommendations that come from the inquiry.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just to be clear, is the minister saying that the prosecutor had not advanced those recommendations to her before her appearance at the Lavoie inquiry?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said earlier, the recommendations were advanced--in her personal capacity she was asked, based on her experience, what would she make as recommendations? That is part of the process of the inquiry which I think will be quite helpful. Though the member may have been able to sit in, I was not able to sit in, but I will be looking for the evaluation of all the recommendations that were submitted and what Justice Schulman in the end would make as a recommendation to our government.

Mr. Mackintosh: I just want to be clear on this. The recommendations were generally excellent, but did the prosecutor either in her personal or professional capacity advance these recommendations to the minister?

Mrs. Vodrey: No. I have not had a document from that prosecutor who has advanced those recommendations. She was asked to think about them and bring them forward to the inquiry, and that is exactly what she did. To my knowledge, she did not, before she was asked to do that, bring them forward in a document to me as minister.

Mr. Mackintosh: Pass.

* (1030)

Mr. Chairperson: 2. Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,840,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,052,800--pass; (3) Witness Programs $582,000--pass.

(b) Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $402,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $991,400--pass; (3) Pediatric Cardiac Unit Inquest $500,000--pass.

(c) Provincial Policing $52,361,200--pass.

(d) Law Enforcement Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $565,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $186,700--pass; (3) Grants $60,000--pass.

(e) Victims Assistance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $511,400.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister list the grants? I am looking at the Grants line, 373.9, which I understand is the Victim Assistance Program and Mr. Prohaska's responsibility. Could the minister list the grants for--the latest information on the grants that have been given from that program? I believe this follows a similar question from last year.

Mr. Chairperson: I will just take this opportunity to inform the committee that we have an agreement in the House that we would pass everything by noon. We will need approximately 15 minutes to do that. So we will probably have to quit at about 11:45, just for the information of the committee.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the grants for this year are to the Family Centre of Winnipeg, to Age and Opportunity victim services, to RCMP victim services, to Cornerstone Counselling, to Mediation Services and also funds for the program review of Victim Services in Manitoba. That is for the year '96-97.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the program review grant related to the analysis of the RCMP victim services units program?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, no, that is a review. It is more global in nature. Though the RCMP program will be included in that, what we are doing is reviewing the services that are currently offered to victims across the province, and then we are also looking at comments that have been made about those services, how those services should be offered, what services should be offered, and we are, from that information, from that more global information, looking at developing a provincial strategy for victims across the province based on the most up-to-date information and evaluation that we have.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there also a review of the relationship between Prosecutions and victims?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, if the member asks are the justice-driven programs also going to be a part of the review, yes, they are. We are looking at the relationship of the victim to the whole justice system, and we want to do this program review then to look at a further direction for our province.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is this the work being done by Wyman Sangster?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, Mr. Chair, though Wyman Sangster is doing work specifically with individuals and groups across the province who are wanting to develop community participation or have ideas, but this is a program review which is being done.

Mr. Mackintosh: Who is doing the program review?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the program review is being done by Prairie Research through a tendered contract.

Mr. Mackintosh: I ask whether that kind of work was within the spirit or the intention of the Victims Assistance Committee to fund. It sounds like this is a program review that would usually be in the course of public administration in the Department of Justice in the usual course, and I wonder why monies that could go for community programming are going to this expenditure. I pose that as a question. I would have to look at the mandates again, but I wonder if the minister would respond.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand that The Justice for Victims of Crime Act allows for research to be done in relation to the victim. That is exactly what we are doing. We need to know what the requirements are from victims across the province, how the people of Manitoba see the role of victims, and then following that information we will have some further direction established in terms of how to meet the needs of victims in our province.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us what Cornerstone Counselling is?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I can tell the member that through Cornerstone Counselling Services the grant was used to hire a domestic violence counsellor.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is that a Winnipeg agency or where is it located?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we will have to clarify the location and what area that group operates within.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain the reduction in the line Criminal Injuries and Medical Aid?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, this government extended the types of eligibility for psychological counselling services. About two years ago we extended the eligibility to include victims of sexual abuse and also sexual assault, and as a result of that--I am told that some of this counselling is fairly new and that there is a great variety of range in terms of fees for the service. I understand the fees range from approximately $45 up to over $100, and also the length of time seems to be still under discussion in terms of what is the most effective. So our government, which really does spend a very significant amount of money in the area of counselling, and in fact I understand we expend more than many other provinces, have moved in this year to look at saying that in the dollar amount that there would be a maximum claim of approximately $2,000, and that the per hour rate for counselling would be topped at the maximum of $90. Now, that takes into account most availability to counsellors. As I said, the range is, by and large, from about $45 to slightly over $100; and, depending upon the hourly rate, it allows for a significant number of visits to that counsellor.

* (1040)

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

We are watching it for this year since we recognize that our expenditure was very significant and that it was, in fact, more significant than a number of provinces, but we certainly think that this is important. So, for this year, this is the step that we have taken, and, as I said, we are going to watch it for this year.

By the way, other provinces, like Saskatchewan, do have a cap on the amount of dollars available for counselling services. For instance, in Saskatchewan it is a cap of $1,000.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does this account then for the reduction on that line?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that on the medical line this does account for the change. However, as I have explained at other times, there are changes as a result of how payouts are delivered. There is now more of a lump sum payment than payment delivered by way of annuity. There have been some changes over the past years.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the amount then that is affected by this capping policy? How much of that reduction is due to that initiative?

Mrs. Vodrey: On this line, Medical Aid, the change is $125,000.

Mr. Mackintosh: We are aware of an incident where there was a claim submitted to the board, but the woman involved--it was a domestic violence issue--did not get an incident number, and, as a result of her investigations, it appeared that a formal report had not been written up regarding the incident. Eventually, the board determined that it would not accept the claim.

I am wondering if the minister has any concern about this policy and whether there can be a change, because I understand that, particularly before the mandatory charging policy at the City of Winnipeg Police Services, there was not as tight a policy on providing an incident number and writing up a report.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that the act has a two-year limit, that all claims must be verified. In order for that, the police have to do an investigation, provide a report. It does not necessarily mean the person has to have been charged, but there has to be a verification that something happened and that there was a victim.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Pitura): Section 4.2.(f) Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1) Other Expenditures $1,885,000--pass; (2) Less: Reduction in Actuarial Liability ($100,000).

Mr. Mackintosh: Just a final question here, a follow-up to last year's questioning. Is there an ongoing review of the scope of the Criminal Injuries Compensation legislation to determine whether the scope should be broadened to include other offences and provide compensation on other bases?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in terms of what is covered, will be part of the review as we are looking at victims services. One of the areas that will be looked at is, is there new legislation now identifying people as victims which was not there before? We are looking specifically, by way of example, at stalking which is fairly newly incorporated into the Criminal Code.

Mr. Mackintosh: Pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Pitura): Item 4.2.(f)(2) Less: Reduction in Actuarial Liability ($100,000)--pass.

Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $66,184,100 for Justice, Public Prosecutions, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

4.3. Justice (a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $131,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $20,200--pass.

4.3. Justice (b) Manitoba Human Rights Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,021,300.

* (1050)

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the Human Rights Commission itself recommend to the government that the education positions at the Human Rights Commission be targeted for cuts in the current budget?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as the member knows, it is and has been a very difficult budget year, and everyone has provided some contribution. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission put forward some options, as well. This was an option put forward by the executive director, and the chair of the Human Rights Commission was aware that this was put forward.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister confirm that there were many recommendations put forward as to areas where there could be cost savings and that this one was the one chosen by the government?

Mrs. Vodrey: In the process, there are often many recommendations put forward, many options put forward. Ultimately, they are not all accepted. In this case, this was one that was accepted, while others were not.

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment, as well, to introduce the staff who have just joined us: Mr. Ron Perozzo, who is the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice; and Mr. George Sarides, who is the Acting Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

3.(b) Manitoba Human Rights Commission (2) Other Expenditures $352,700--pass.

3.(c) Legislative Counsel (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,291,500.

Mr. Mackintosh: It has recently come to our attention that the government has contracted with Aikins MacAulay to provide legal services to MLAs, including members on this side. I would like to know what arrangement the minister has entered into with Aikins MacAulay.

Mrs. Vodrey: Legislative Counsel has retained Aikins MacAulay for legal advice for members in the area of conflict of interest. It was seen that it was going to be helpful to have independent advice for members rather than advice from government lawyers alone.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, it is important, of course, that the minister has just acknowledged that they are government lawyers, and we are in a difficult position on this side of the House, not having lawyers who indeed are entirely independent. Traditionally, the law officer of the Assembly has been treated as such. I think the whole function has been more departmentalized now, leaving this side of the House with getting legal advice from a firm that it did not contract with itself--it had no input into that contract--and from someone who does not have expertise in the matters of the Legislature that we had a long history of in this Chamber. Many here will recall the services of Mr. Rae Tallin.

I wonder what cost arrangement the minister has entered into with Aikins MacAulay for the provision of these legal services.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before we continue, could I ask the honourable members who want to carry on their conversation to do so quietly or out in the hall or in the loge. Thank you.

Mrs. Vodrey: The arrangement, let me be clear, is not specifically with Aikins MacAulay. It is with a specific lawyer. The lawyer's name Eleanor Dawson. That arrangement was made because of her specific expertise.

The arrangement was made not for opposition, not for government, but was an arrangement for members, and it was an arrangement for members dealing with individual advice to that member. The law officer function is still retained by Legislative Counsel, and Legislative Counsel does take very seriously the need to maintain independence and confidentiality. It is in the matter of personal issues which Eleanor Dawson has been retained by Legislative Counsel for that reason.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

4.3.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $343,400--pass.

4.3.(d) Manitoba Law Reform Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $305,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $118,900--pass.

4.3.(e) Family Law (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $526,800.

Mr. Mackintosh: The issue recently arose where there is a question as to the priority of pension monies attached under the new provisions of the legislation. I wonder if the minister can advise the committee whether, in her view, those pension monies have priority vis-à-vis other claims against the debtor.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, let me take a moment to introduce Joan MacPhail, who is the Director of the Family Law branch.

In answer to the member's question, I understand that there was recently a newspaper article which attempted to deal with this subject, which is really a very complex subject, and I understand in that article the article was not dealing with a provincially regulated pension and it did not fall within that category. So it did not relate to the garnishment of a provincially regulated pension, and with a provincially regulated pension it is only the enforcement branch that can do the garnishment and it is only the recipient who can receive the benefit.

There are different rules, I understand, for federally regulated pensions for RSPs.

* (1100)

Mr. Mackintosh: I appreciate that assurance. I also ask the minister whether she is aware whether there is any delay in the service of outstanding warrants for arrest for those who fail to appear in court pursuant to a court order.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that that question is best covered in Courts under the maintenance enforcement area.

Mr. Mackintosh: What are the current staff years allocated to the maintenance enforcement office?

Mrs. Vodrey: That would fall under Courts under maintenance enforcement line. We are dealing with the Family Law line now, which is in Justice.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass?--pass.

4.3.(e) Family Law (2) Other Expenditures $106,400--pass.

4.3.(f) Constitutional Law (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $585,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $112,700--pass.

4.3.(g) Legal Aid Manitoba (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $6,002,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $6,743,600--pass.

4.3.(h) Civil Legal Services, zero.

4.3.(j) The Public Trustee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, zero; (2) Other Expenditures, zero.

Resolution 4.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $17,662,700 for Justice, Justice, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

We have already concluded 4.4, so we will move on to 4.5 Courts.

4.5 Courts (a) Court Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,780,200.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just for the information of the minister, it is our intention to deal with questions under Court Services at the concurrent stage and to pass the items now.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass?--pass.

4.5(a)(2) Other Expenditures $1,113,700--pass.

4.5(b) Winnipeg Courts (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,222,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,382,000--pass.

4.5(c) Regional Courts (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,896,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $2,077,100--pass.

4.5(d) Judicial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,415,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $707,200--pass.

Resolution 4.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $26,594,700 for Justice, Courts, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

Mr. Chairperson: We will now revert to Resolution 4.1(a). The staff should leave the Chamber at this time. We will be dealing with the Minister's Salary.

Shall the item pass?

Mr. Mackintosh: No.

Voice Vote

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

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

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

An Honourable Member: On division.

Mr. Chairperson: On division. Item 4.1(a) is accordingly passed, on division.

Resolution 4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,753,600 for Justice, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

This concludes the Department of Justice. We will now be moving to Aboriginal Justice Initiatives.