JUSTICE

* (1000)

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.

We are on Resolution 4.2 Operating Appropriations 2. Public Prosecutions (e) Victims Assistance.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Regarding the Women's Advocacy Program, I am wondering if the government has any plans to extend the program and offices to other locations outside of Winnipeg.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): It would be considered as part of the review that we are doing right now for overall services to victims. We have used an incremental approach, and we would like to review as well how the three places where we have extended the service into are managing also. But I think the overall answer is best answered by, it will be part of our overall review of services to victims.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise as of the workload statistics for the Women's Advocacy office at Brandon, which would include intakes, referrals and however else those statistics are broken down for the Women's Advocacy Program?

Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment the statistics are being kept as intakes only and in Brandon the intake for the Women's Advocacy Program is 130 and for the Child Witness Program, 15.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister also provide that information for the Thompson and The Pas offices?

Mrs. Vodrey: For Thompson, the intake for the Women's Advocacy Program is 114, and for the Child Witness Program, it is 10; for The Pas, the intake for the Women's Advocacy Program is 104, and there are not stats available for the Child Witness Program.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the province directly fund any portion of the Winnipeg victim services unit?

Mrs. Vodrey: Could I clarify from the member, is he referring to a service offered by the Winnipeg Police Services?

Mr. Mackintosh: Yes.

Mrs. Vodrey: No, we do not, at the moment, have any funding obligation to the service offered by the Winnipeg Police Services.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware as to whether the city or the Winnipeg Police Services has requested funding assistance for that program in light of the funding of programs outside of Winnipeg that are similar in nature?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, to our knowledge, not at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee if there are any other staffing or program changes to the Women's Advocacy Program for this fiscal year?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am told that we filled one vacant position over the past year. That was the position of counsellor now filled. We also have a casual position which we have been using to fill while the supervisor has done work such as training, work to make sure that there are the appropriate number of staff people and services available.

Mr. Mackintosh: I believe the minister said earlier that the youth gang line could be dealt with under this appropriation. I could be wrong there, but I have written that down under this title. Is this where we can deal with that?

Mrs. Vodrey: The staff person who has knowledge for that is not here at the moment. We are certainly prepared to call him and we can deal with that when he arrives if that is agreeable to the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, as long as we can deal with it at some point. I just do not want to lose the opportunity to question on that. It looks like there is no funding specifically for Victims Assistance in any event. So perhaps if we can deal with it whenever it is appropriate, if the minister would advise who the individual is now, then I can be on my toes.

* (1010)

Mrs. Vodrey: My suggestion is that we look at it at 4(d) then, which is Community Corrections, and though this is not a staff person who would usually come in that area, we will see that he is available to be here to cover it under line 4(d).

Mr. Chairperson: Item 4, 2.(e) Victims Assistance (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $505,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,093,500--pass; (3) Grants $373,900--pass.

2.(f) Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (1) Other Expenditures $1,885,000--pass; (2) Less: Reduction in Actuarial Liabilities ($100,000)--(pass).

Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $65,454,700 for Justice, Public Prosecutions, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Mr. Mackintosh: That resolution was from the other day I take it?

Mr. Chairperson: This resolution is everything that we have passed in Public Prosecutions, 4.2; 2(a) has been passed, that was Public Prosecutions. Then there is (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).

Mr. Mackintosh: Okay, I have not dealt with (f) yet, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for the committee to revert back to Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Some Honourable Members: Leave.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just a couple of brief questions. Is it within the mandate of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to pay for the legitimate moving costs of an individual who is in hiding from--whether it be a stalker or an abuser?

Mrs. Vodrey: Stalking is not yet included under the Criminal Code actions, which are covered under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, we are more than prepared to do that in terms of making sure stalking becomes included. We will go through the process. Whether or not that will ultimately cover moving costs, I cannot say now. However, we certainly will look at making sure stalking becomes included under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Mackintosh: I will be watching to ensure that takes place. As well, though, I would like the minister to advise the committee whether an individual in hiding from an abuser would be entitled to moving costs as a result of a criminal charge of assault.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that at the moment it does not fall currently into the mandate; however, where charges have been laid and the victim is a witness, it is possible that it could be covered. Maybe I should make sure it is clarified for the record so that someone reading it understands the tone in which I am answering. It is possible, I am not saying for sure that it would be covered. We would have to look at the incident itself and then see if, in fact, it could fall within the guidelines, and, at the moment, it does not.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, then, I think the clear answer would be that the Criminal Injuries Comp Board does not pay for moving expenses of a victim of domestic assault.

Mrs. Vodrey: I believe that is the answer I have given, that, no, at the moment, it does not fall within the guidelines. However, and I listed a set of circumstances where charges have been laid, where the victim is a witness, where in fact there may be some circumstances which may have it fall within the guidelines, but at the moment, it does not.

Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister suggesting that perhaps under the guise of a witness protection program, there could be moving expenses allowed?

* (1020)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the moment compensates for injury. It compensates in the area of counselling which may be required, and I have spoken about that in terms of particularly our extension into those who have been abused as children. The member is asking now, will it also extend into the protection of witnesses, and I can tell him, not through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but in the case where we believe witnesses require protection, then we certainly see to that protection. That is not funded under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

His question seems to me to be, now, because people have required protection and may require moving, is that in fact now to be seen as an injury? At the moment, no, it is not. At the moment, we cover for injuries and would deal with matters such as counselling, not moving expenses, but I would say to the member, again and for the record, that where witnesses do require protection that protection is provided.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there any ongoing study either by the board or by the department or any other person or agency as to the scope of the benefits and the operations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there is in fact a Criminal Injuries Compensation program review committee which is made up of people from within the Department of Justice. That committee has met, and an initial meeting took place, and then a second meeting has taken place. They have looked at a timetable and a work plan for this review, and some of the issues that will be considered by this review committee are new offences that are not currently covered under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. For example, one of the issues on their agenda is criminal harassment or stalking.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise what the provision for future costs is as of March 31, 1995?

Mrs. Vodrey: The information that I have says, as of March 31, 1995, the provision for future costs is $18,686,231.

Mr. Chairperson: Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $65,454,700 for Justice, Public Prosecutions for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Resolution 4.3 Justice (a) Administration and Special Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $129,100.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee the position description and the name of the individual that makes up the one SY under Managerial?

Mrs. Vodrey: That managerial position refers to the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Ron Perozzo.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just briefly, I have looked at the explanation of what this area does, but it is not clear in my mind what the practical work is, and I am aware of Mr. Perozzo's involvement, for example, in the committees and providing advice to the minister on pending legislation. I am just wondering, is that kind of work included in this area, and could the minister just briefly describe other activities that are undertaken in this area?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, may I just clarify with the member. Does he mean other activities and work undertaken by the one person in the managerial position or by the division of Justice?

Mr. Mackintosh: By this particular division. I mean, it appears that there are only two SYs here. One is Mr. Perozzo and obviously some administrative assistant, so I suppose that when she asked, is it Mr. Perozzo's position or the division's duties that I have asked her to describe, it looks as if they are one and the same.

* (1030)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I think I understand the question to be the role then of the manager and the one support person in relation to not only the Justice Division, but if there are other responsibilities as well. That individual is required to provide leadership to all the areas of the Justice Division that we will be speaking about in the next while, Civil Legal Services, Constitutional Law, Family Law, the Public Trustee, but is also responsible for areas of the department not contained within the Justice Division: Finance and Administrative Services which is appropriation 1, the Legal Aid Society which is appropriation 6, the Human Rights Commission which is appropriation 6.

In addition to that the individual is responsible as associate deputy minister for areas of financial management across the department, also for areas of management reform across the department and interdivisional corporate responsibilities. That would include things like legislation, which we are bringing back and which we are bringing forward, which would require different divisions within the Department of Justice to have knowledge and co-operate and where the effect would be on several different divisions within the Department of Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: It looks like it is a difficult position, obviously, to carry out duties then because of the nature of some of the organizations within Justice that have to be dealt with. What I am getting at here is, for example, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission has some relative independence from the department and I suppose a liaison can often be difficult. As well, the Law Reform Commission is at least somewhat independent.

I wonder, how independent is the office of the Public Trustee? In other words, is this position able to direct the office of the Public Trustee in any way or would the relationship only be one of advice or recommendation?

Mrs. Vodrey: The Public Trustee's office is independent for the purposes of being sued or for suing and it is also independent, therefore, in determining action that they will take in the interests of its clients. In areas of personnel management, it does fall within the requirements of the government programs and it has to meet the same kinds of standards and requirements that are there for government.

Mr. Chairperson: 4, 3.(a) Administration and Special Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $129,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $22,400--pass.

3.(b) Civil Legal Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits . . . . .

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain what cost-benefit arguments there are--that is not the right way to put it. What cost-benefit changes are being recognized now as a result of the special operating agency?

Mrs. Vodrey: Let me take a moment to introduce Mr. Tom Hague, the director of Civil Legal Services to the committee.

In terms of the member's question, I understand that it is a little bit too soon to give him any numbers. The first quarter is not finished yet. However, when the first quarter is finished, a report will be submitted to the Department of Justice and to government. I would remind him that Civil Legal Services have operated on a cost-recovery basis for approximately three years now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I will look forward to seeing the results of that survey and that review, and I ask that the minister provide me with any overview after the first quarter. Would the minister be prepared to do that?

Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, there will be an annual report made public at the end of the year, and I will be sure that he has a copy of that annual report.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, then I take it the answer is no and given that the annual report of different departments or divisions has been coming into the Chamber very late, I am wondering if the minister cannot provide at least the annual report from the special operating agency at the time that it is provided to her.

Mrs. Vodrey: Of course, I will be sure that the member receives that report in a timely way.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, then the answer was no.

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the answer was not no.

The member obviously has some misunderstanding. I certainly agreed that I will be providing him with the annual report. It is a requirement to make this available and I certainly will. I have told him that he will receive it in a timely way; he will receive it when I am able to provide it. I certainly will make sure that he gets it as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise whether the government has legal counsel representing it on issues regarding the arena and the Jets, and if so, who that is?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I can tell the member that no retainer has been arranged through the Department of Justice.

* (1040)

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it then the policy of the government that legal advice provided to the government need not be secured through the Department of Justice?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member may know, in special circumstances counsel may act for a Crown corporation and government. In this case I am not able to provide him today with who all of the people or groups or corporations or whatever are involved, and his question is best put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

Mr. Mackintosh: I believe my question was: Is it government policy then that outside counsel retained by government departments need not be retained through the Department of Justice?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I said in my last answer, the vast majority are, but there may be special circumstances, and the member is best to put his question to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister expressed any concerns to her colleagues in cabinet or to other officials about the retaining of outside counsel from departments on an ad hoc basis and not through her department?

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Chair, I am confident that my colleagues who are directly involved are doing the best job and careful job possible for the people of Manitoba.

* (1050)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister provide a list indicating the lawyers retained by the government, not including Crown corporations, by matter for the year '94-95?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I am certainly prepared to provide the list of lawyers and the amounts paid. However, the issue is not possible as it could prejudice the conduct of the case or the issue itself.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, is the minister saying she will not provide the names of the lawyers that the government has retained over the past fiscal year? I just want to make this clear for the record.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, let me say it again. I have agreed to the member--he always has to come back and say, the minister will not. He is quite wrong. What I said was, I am prepared to provide, glad to provide as I provided him last year, with a list of the names of the lawyers and the money paid. What I am not prepared to provide is the issue on which we sought advice.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister for that clarification, and I will consider her response.

I notice that there are quite a number of claims regarding the Northern Flood Agreement that the government is defending. It is my understanding that, and I could not recognize it here, given the descriptions in the undertaking, but that there is a claim regarding the losses alleged by former residents of South Indian Lake. I am wondering if the minister can tell the committee the status of that claim.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I would remind the member that we are acting for a client department in that matter and his question is best put to that client department.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: Okay. Civil Legal Services needs no appropriation. Okay, pass.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 3.(c)(1)--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $378,800--pass.

3.(d) Manitoba Law Reform Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $304,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $142,300--pass.

3.(e) Family Law (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $528,100.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I would just like to take a moment to introduce Joan MacPhail, the Director of Family Law, to the committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee the current status of implementing child support guidelines in Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey: At a meeting of ministers of Justice across Canada in January a decision was made to release the paper on the child support guidelines. That discussion paper has been circulated in Manitoba. I am told that there were approximately 100 copies of the summary and the original report which have been obtained by groups and individuals across the province. I understand that many of those individuals have provided their comments to the committee, that is the provincial, territorial and federal committee who is working on the child support guidelines. The federal minister has indicated that he expects to make some announcements and possible changes in the fall of '95. But we do not have any guarantees that he will move that quickly.

* (1100)

Mr. Mackintosh: Does this minister have a particular view of the report and if so, is she making that view public, or has she expressed her view to her counterparts?

Mrs. Vodrey: The position that I have taken is that I was very interested to see what Manitobans would say about the discussion paper and the guidelines in particular. My understanding is much of the feedback from Manitobans has been that under the formula the awards will be too low; secondly, that there was some interest in having at least some circumstances in which a judge might deviate from the guidelines which have been provided by the federal government.

That is the position that we have taken back to the working committee, and we are hopeful that they will now take into account some of the suggestions and recommendations that have come from Manitoba. I understand that those concerns have also been raised from other jurisdictions in Canada, as well.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee the status of the custody and access project?

Mrs. Vodrey: The custody and access issue is still being examined by the federal-provincial-territorial working group. The working group has identified some problems. They do not know the magnitude of the problems. There is research into these issues. At the moment they identified that there was in fact a lack of research on some issues which they wanted to examine, so there is now some research ongoing. Research is being done by the federal research committee, and the federal-provincial-territorial working group has to receive that information back and have a look at it before a report is submitted to ministers. So, there has not yet been a final submission to ministers yet.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister contemplate when the final submission will be made?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that at this point it is uncertain that a date has been made available to our representatives on the committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister describe the Access Assistance Program that was alluded to the other night in committee and how that program is or was funded? I hope that she will comment on whether the program is ongoing or not, and if it is not, when did it cease?

Mrs. Vodrey: The access program that the member has asked about is one which was jointly funded by the federal government and the province. It is important to note that it was a pilot project funded for three years and extended by one year with provincial funding only. It looked at issues that related to two departments in the provincial government, and that is the conciliation services and the legal services, so it was a co-operative effort within this government between Family Services and Family Law within Justice.

What it looked at was ways to resolve the causes of access difficulties. Unlike the Maintenance Enforcement Program, where, when maintenance is not paid, we are able to identify the problem, that is, maintenance is not paid, in the issue of the access program, it was much harder to actually identify, I am told, the reasons for denial for access. It was a more complicated program. The pilot project finished in March '93 and the federal government indicated that they would no longer participate in funding. The provincial government did fund for one more year and an evaluation was done.

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the project consider or establish or supervise access centres?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, it did not develop the access centres, and it did not provide long-term supervision. It did provide supervision for a short time to move into the transition for access.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, essentially then the program was a mediation program. Is that an accurate description?

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

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the issue of mediation, I am told, was only a component of the program. The program also dealt with counselling. It also dealt with referrals, referrals for difficulties within families such as alcoholism. There was also assessment of children and, if the assessment of children was done, it may look at if the access order was seen to be appropriate or if in fact there would be instructions to legal counsel to move forward to court.

However, sometimes Conciliation felt that it was not appropriate to move forward to court and sometimes the issues were able to be resolved outside of court.

Mr. Mackintosh: What was the government's view as to the success of this program?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that over the three-year period there were approximately 169 families who participated, which is interesting in that it is a fairly low number that one might expect for three years. Of that 169, 99 families were considered to actually fit the criteria and actually be able to participate in all areas of what the program offered. So that is 99 families over three years. Of the 99 families, I am told that there were approximately 20 who, in fact, used most of the time available over that three-year period.

So the results seem to be somewhat mixed for that pilot project in that the uptake on the project was not really large. The families who were actually utilizing all areas of the services was in fact a small number. So it appears, I am told, that the results were somewhat mixed.

Mr. Mackintosh: What was the cost to the province in the final year of the project's operation?

Mrs. Vodrey: Members here at the table are trying to recall, but we do not have the exact figure available to us. So I will have to just take that question under advisement and get back to the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the government have a program review document and analysis that she would make available to the Committee?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the member could be provided with a copy of that report.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering how the project was made known to families that could make use of it.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the community consultation group, which was involved with the project for the whole life of the project, had representatives from a wide range of groups and lots of community contacts. In addition, the program was also made known through the courts proper. There were meetings with the Family Conciliation branch who met with the child protection workers, with the police, there was also--and so that was one way in which the community was known. The legal community was also notified. There were contacts with the Family Law bar. There were notices in publications, legal publications and publications to the Family bar, and there was also a public information pamphlet.

* (1110)

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the government currently have any plans to start up the program again in some other form or a similar form?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, there is currently some research being undertaken by the federal government at the request of the federal-provincial-territorial committee, which is looking at custody and access issues. As I said in an earlier answer, what they determined was that really, in fact, there really was not a whole lot of information and particularly research available that looked at problems in custody and access, particularly in the access side. So before we would consider moving ahead into a project of our own, it would be wise for us to get that research information that is being prepared for the fed-prov committee. At that point then we will see what that information yields.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee what the status of discussions is to break down interprovincial barriers to maintenance enforcement?

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I think one of the first things that has happened was really an important meeting which took place between Family Law and Maintenance Enforcement directors, representatives from across Canada. I gather that was one of the first times, if not the first time, maybe we should say one of the first times, to make sure we are correct, that in fact the Maintenance Enforcement officers and Family Law representatives have jointly gone and talked across the country and tried to look at the issues.

They have, as a result of that meeting, struck a series of subcommittees which are looking at the issue. In addition, they identified role and assistance from the federal government that would also be helpful. So, that is the formal way in which the issue is being looked at. However, I have said before, as well, it has been raised at meetings of ministers of Justice and also ministers responsible for the Status of Women. The issue of enforcement between provinces is one that certainly is known to be important, and we are making every effort to try and move on that issue.

Mr. Mackintosh: I for one am frustrated by the lack of progress on this issue in terms of meaningful, recognizable change. I am wondering if the minister can play a stronger role here in attempting to take a lead in getting the Canadian ministers' heads together to break down these barriers.

Mrs. Vodrey: I have to say that as minister I consider this to be a very important issue as well. That is why I have raised it at every conference that I have been at. This is a provincial responsibility by and large except in the areas where the federal government can assist us. So it does require individual ministers to be convinced that they should make this a priority within their own government. I am told that most provinces are, in fact, working on reforms now, and I can tell the member that it is an issue that I expect to be continually on the agenda of ministers of Justice and ministers for the Status of Women across the country.

* (1120)

Mr. Mackintosh: In regard to the consultations that were held regarding changes to maintenance enforcement in late '94, would the minister tell the committee where the consultations took place.

Mrs. Vodrey: There were eight half-day community consultation sessions held in September and October of '94. Five were in Winnipeg, three were in Brandon, Dauphin and Thompson.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister read into the record the individuals and, if they represented an organization, the name of the organization that attended each of those consultations?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am more than happy to give the member some of the groups that were presenters. I will provide him with the names, but I am honestly not sure that those individuals would want their names read into the record of Hansard for the purpose of the Estimates discussion of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, is the minister prepared to provide me with the list on the understanding that the names will not be read into the record?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, and I said to the member that I am more than pleased to provide the names of the organizations for the record, or at least the organizations I have available to me today, and I did say in my last answer I was prepared to provide the names to the member of the individuals that we have, but out of consideration for those individual people who came to a committee to offer advice I am not sure that it is really fair of us to then put their names in the Hansard of this province. I do not know that they ever expected that kind of public scrutiny for their opinions.

Some of the attendees included representatives from the Women's Advisory Council, the Mennonite Central Committee, Manitoba Association of Social Workers, Manitoba Association of Women in the Law, Legal Education and Action Fund, Reseau, Pluri-elles, among others.

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the department invite any custodial parents enrolled in the Maintenance Enforcement Program to attend other than individuals associated with the coalition for custodial parents?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that invitations to individual custodial parents were not forwarded because there was a concern of having a group of individuals who may in fact be intimidated by each other or by the process in a room, and the purpose was to stimulate discussion. So, letters of invitation were sent to representative groups who could then determine who might attend and who we believed would in fact speak for and be able to bring forward the views of a larger range of individuals. However, there was a random client survey done also through the Maintenance Enforcement Program in an effort to get at the opinions of individuals and those who could answer the questions in privacy and not have to deal with perhaps being intimidated by a larger group.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister describe how the survey was conducted?

Mrs. Vodrey: The survey was done by Court Services. Court Services is line 5.(a) in the Estimates book and the details could be covered best when the individuals who were involved are here.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have a compilation of the recommendations or concerns raised during the consultations?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that at the moment there is not a formal document which compiles all of the recommendations and suggestions together in one place.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee who represented the department at these consultations?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the department was represented by Joe MacPhail, who is with us now, the director of Family Law; Irene Young, who is the director of Court Services, Pat Dunlop, who is the director of the Maintenance Enforcement Program, and also at the sessions were one or both of the Family Law lawyers from our department.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have information as to whether or not the issue of applying interest to arrears on maintenance orders was raised during the consultation?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I said during the committee hearings for the Maintenance Enforcement bill, yes, it was raised.

* (1130)

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the minister's information that it was raised with a view to urging the government to implement or to ensure that interest is applied to arrears?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, individuals did raise this issue which I explained during the hearings for the bill the other evening; however, it is the responsibility of government to put forward legislation which we believe will be effective. And in putting together this legislation, what we did was recognize that where maintenance is not paid, where arrears accumulate adding to the debt, adding interest to those arrears of already unpaid volumes of dollars was not going to get the dollars paid. So the approach that this government took was one which dealt with enforcement measures, and that is why I have continually said that we have put forward the toughest legislation across this country. This is the only civil debt for which a person can go to jail. In this debt the person can also have his driver's licence taken away.

So we put in penalties and consequences which we believe were very strong, were powerful and, if ever motivation was required, we believe it is coming from the enforcement side. We would prefer not to have to deal with arrears at all, let alone interest on arrears, and so our approach was to put together a very strong bill, and as I said several times, strongest across the country. It is strong in enforcement measures, and it is strong also in providing greater resources to be attached or available for the payment. In the past, people could say they simply did not have the money and attempt to shield it or shelter it. This bill opens up areas of resources available to the Maintenance Enforcement Program to get those resources and make sure they are paid.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have information as to whether or not people at the consultations urged the government to stop the forgiveness of arrears by the courts?

Mrs. Vodrey: In the recollection of individuals who were part of that consultation tell me that the issue of whether arrears are forgiven tends to deal more with the determination of award side which is done by the court. They are not specifically related to the maintenance enforcement side. The recollection is that there was some discussion, however it has been related to me that because we are dealing with the Maintenance Enforcement bill and what the Maintenance Enforcement Program could do was not raised as a major issue.

However, for those who were concerned about it, I understand that some of their concerns relate to the whole determination of awards, how awards are changed or varied, and then, if awards are forgiven. So I am not sure if I can add to the member's reason for asking that question further.

Mr. Mackintosh: Was it the minister's view that the current legislation, which allows for the forgiveness of arrears, is appropriate?

Mrs. Vodrey: This is an issue which deals with variations. Court supports are determined at a particular point in time. From that point in time, often individual circumstances change. Therefore, there are changes by the court in terms of what the order may be or whether or not the arrears may be forgiven by the court. The divorce act provides for this variation of awards and our Maintenance Enforcement Act then allowed for it also.

We recognize that individual circumstances may change, and an example was given the other evening at committee where, at the time of an award, an individual may be making an income of, for example, $50,000 or $60,000. Something happens in that individual's life, and they are no longer able to work. In fact, those individuals may begin to collect social assistance. They are no longer able to pay at the level that they were when the award was determined. To have arrears continually pile up simply does not make sense, because they are not able to be collected, and so it is under those circumstances in which it may be a reason for the court to decide to waive arrears. This continues to allow for that kind of circumstance.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware as to whether people at the consultations urged the government to make changes to ensure that the needs of children became the first and foremost consideration of the court when granting awards, rather than the current situation, where the spending habits or current priorities of the noncustodial parent seem to be considered with the same or greater weight?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told again that this is an issue that does not relate specifically to enforcement. The discussions were really focused on issues as they related to maintenance enforcement. The issue the member raises is more an issue related to settlement. As I said to him the other night, the courts do take into account the cost of raising children. In Manitoba we have a specialized court which deals with these matters.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister explain why it is not government policy that not only drivers' licences or vehicle registrations be available as, say, incentives or penalties in the event of default, but other licences, whether they be professional licences or hunting licences, but the whole range of licence granting authority of the government?

* (1140)

Mrs. Vodrey: We made a decision to deal with the driver's licence and the motor vehicle registration. We believe that, first of all, it affected the largest number of individuals. Most people want to drive. This would stop them from that. This also affected the self-employed as well as people who are employed through companies or in other ways. Looking at professional licences, we are looking at cutting off the ability of somebody to become employed, or to be employed, and so that did not seem to make sense to us.

In looking at other kinds of provincial licences which are available, things like hunting licences and fishing licences, the difficulty for us was to see that that would actually help in the area of maintenance enforcement. It would be very difficult to monitor that particular kind of licence, licensing or revocation of such a licence or denial to such a licence. Many of those licences are available in stores. They are not necessarily in a place where you have to go to a formal government department in order to apply, which the driver's licence is.

So, looking at other kinds of provincial licences, we were not really sure that that would have the impact that was desired.

As I said the other night, though, we have tried not to close any doors; we will continue to look at ways to make the Maintenance Enforcement Program the best program that it can be. We will continue to look at other kinds of suggestions and issues which were raised. The important part for this government was to move what we believe is still now the strongest bill across this country. We could wait forever to continue to investigate each and every suggestion and recommendation brought forward, and we would never pass the bill. We would be stuck in research. Our decision as a government was to take a bill that we believe will make a difference, that we believe will put more money into the hands of women and children in this province, and yet continue to look at other suggestions and recommendations which are brought forward. But all of them will be looked at in the light of, will this actually assist in maintenance enforcement across this province? Will it in fact put more money into the hands of those who need and deserve it?

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain why her department did not intervene in the Thibodeau case at the Supreme Court of Canada, or at an earlier level?

Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, to intervene, you have to be able to give additional information for the court's benefit. It was our view that all of the considerations that we would have raised were already being raised in the arguments.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister contemplating any changes at the provincial level to eliminate or reduce the impact of the federal tax policy on the custodial parents?

Mrs. Vodrey: The place that we are at now is, we have see if the federal government is going to do anything now in response to Thibaudeau. I was in Ottawa when that decision came down. I spoke to national media about that particular issue and made it clear that now the ball really is in the court of the federal government. Let us see what in fact the federal government is going to do. It is up to them right now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister want to deal with issues regarding the Maintenance Enforcement office under this line, or should that be dealt under Court Services?

Mrs. Vodrey: That should be dealt with under Court Services.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 3. Justice (e) Family Law (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $528,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $120,400--pass.

(f) Constitutional Law (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $577,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $118,900--pass.

Resolution 4.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,613,000 for Justice for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

That will now bring us to Resolution 4.4, 4. Corrections (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $661,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $313,500--pass.

4.(b) Adult Corrections (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $27,543,300.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister tell the committee what the current status is of the Restorative Resolutions project?

* (1150)

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, let me introduce you to members of staff who have joined us: Mr. Ben Thiessen, who is the acting assistant deputy minister of Corrections; and Mr. Jim Wolfe, who is the executive director of Adult Corrections. The honourable member has asked about Restorative Resolutions, which I have said that our government advanced its money, and we have. Permanent funding will be reviewed on the completion of the next 18-month period, which will be within 1996.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the minister's view that the Restorative Resolutions project to date appears to be positive in outcome?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we are satisfied to this point, but no commitments have been made at this point because we really want to see what happens within the next 18 months.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, is there any federal money going into the project right now, and is there any expected or going into it in the next 18 months?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am told that the federal government has now come through with their portion of the funding.

Mr. Mackintosh: What was the percentage funding formula that was concluded?

Mrs. Vodrey: The federal government gave $120,000 for the duration of the project, and I understand it will be made available, it has been made available by mid-June 1995.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the provincial contribution?

Mrs. Vodrey: The provincial contribution is valued at $110,000, two staff years and $15,000 in kind.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just following up on an issue from the last round of Estimates, is the minister aware of whether there is a woman practitioner now available to provide medical services for the women at Portage la Prairie?

Mrs. Vodrey: At this point, no, there is not.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee what action she has taken over the last year to ensure that there is a choice of gender for medical practitioners at the facility?

Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment, I understand that there is no female practitioner available in Portage la Prairie area.

Mr. Mackintosh: I take it then that that is the reason for there not being any female medical practitioners at the facility or, in fact, can that be made available by way of travel costs or some other arrangement so that a female doctor from another community can attend?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, there is not a female practitioner available in Portage la Prairie. That is the situation for all the people who live in Portage la Prairie, not just the women of the Portage Correctional Institution. At the moment, we do not have a female practitioner at the institution. It would be very costly to bring a practitioner from another city, for instance, Winnipeg, because we would be required to pay travel expenses and also pay for travel time. Understand that would almost double the cost of a practitioner available. We have looked at this and have looked at those who live in the city of Portage la Prairie as well and see that there is not a female practitioner available to those individuals either.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of any considerations that are current or any discussions about combining the correctional regimes of the federal and provincial governments, particularly having in mind cost savings?

Mrs. Vodrey: We have not been approached by the federal government in this matter.

Mr. Mackintosh: I therefore take it that the province has not expressed any interest to the federal government either.

Mrs. Vodrey: No, we have not at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps I will just list some of the issues that we will follow up with after Question Period today. First, there will be the status of the Beausejour alternative measures committee, I suppose you could call it. I understand that a Youth-Justice-Committee-type model for adults is being evaluated or is in place at Beausejour. Second of all, we will be looking at the minister's announcements about more rigorous confinement for adult correctional facilities. We will also look at the programming and intervention for abusers, and that will be following on last year's Estimates go-around.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I thank the honourable member for giving us that advance information, and we will be available this afternoon to talk on those issues with him.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being twelve noon, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being after 10 p.m., the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon (Thursday).