Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Does the honourable Minister of Justice have an opening statement?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to make a few remarks to open this presentation. As the newly appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General, it is indeed a privilege for me to make my first presentation of the Estimates of Manitoba Justice. I am going to take this opportunity to outline some of the plans and activities of the department for this fiscal year.
However, Mr. Chairman, before getting into these highlights, I want to discuss briefly the department's mission statement, goals and objectives, because it is these guiding principles that lead to the development of programs and priorities within the department.
Our mission is to administer a system of justice that promotes a safe, just and peaceful society based on democratic principles, the law, and respect for rights and freedoms. Our aim is to administer an open, accessible system of justice that treats everyone fairly.
Our government's vision is to improve the quality of life for Manitobans. Manitobans have told us they expect the justice system to be fair and accountable, that the rights of victims are extremely important and that criminals must be held accountable and pay the consequences of their criminal acts. They have also told us that public safety is a high priority. It is with this and other priorities in mind that the department has determined its objectives for the year, and I will now focus on some of them to introduce my Estimates.
A prime focus for this year is enhancing public safety. In support of this goal, a number of new initiatives are underway. The new Public Safety Branch will lead the development of fresh approaches to crime prevention and victim services in Manitoba. For example, this summer we intend to introduce an Urban Sports Camp Program for inner city youths in Winnipeg using social development as a way to divert young people from engaging in criminal activities. The details will be released in the near future when we announce this program formally.
The branch will also reorganize the delivery of victim services in response to the recently completed Prairie Research Associates report. We will continue to lead the country in our approaches to dealing with dangerous offenders. The Community Notification Advisory Committee has proven so successful that a national conference will take place in Winnipeg where this Manitoba initiative will be explained to interested delegates from other jurisdictions, some of whom have already followed Manitoba's lead.
We are also chairing a national committee charged with developing new legislative initiatives to deal with dangerous offenders. Other Manitoba strategies include increased use of dangerous offender applications to the courts and more aggressive prosecution of cases involving serious and violent crimes, especially those involving gangs.
This fall, Manitoba has organized and will host a national conference that will give upgraded training to professionals who deal with domestic violence ensuring they are aware of the latest developments in legal issues, research and practices in the field. We are also taking a number of steps to counter the threat of street gangs. They are special funding for co-ordinated police-criminal intelligence activities; multidisciplinary strategies to divert youths from joining gangs; targeted prosecution of auto thefts; introduction of antiprostitution legislation; implementing The Parental Responsibility Act; monitoring and segregating known street gang members in our correctional institutions; financial support for the Winnipeg Police Service Curfew Check Program; and aggressive prosecution of gang-related crime.
* (1430)
We see good RCMP service for Manitobans throughout the province as a top priority, as well as adequate funding to ensure this service can be provided. The RCMP has been authorized to undertake a major upgrade of their telecommunications network in the province. By centralizing, dispatching and eliminating areas of poor radio reception, we will improve response times in rural Manitoba and provide more reliable communications for RCMP members in the field.
Aboriginal justice services will continue be a priority of the department for 1997-98. The former $1-million Aboriginal Justice Fund has been replaced by a $1.5-million Justice Initiatives Fund, which will support a range of new programs. It will provide a source of funding for developing and testing new innovative approaches to the challenges facing the judicial system.
We expect that, although fund projects will no longer be limited to aboriginal needs, they will continue to address interests or issues of interest and concern to aboriginal people and communities. The fund will continue to support project commitments made from the AJI fund such as the First Nations Justice Strategy and will be available to address recommendations from public inquiries, such as those issued last fall by former Justice Hughes and those pending from Mr. Justice Schulman of the Court of Queen's Bench.
In addition, there will be funding for community justice committee operations for grassroots initiatives developed in Winnipeg neighbourhoods and regional communities. The criteria for the fund will give priority to enhancing public safety, including aboriginal justice concerns.
The Hollow Water Healing Circle and the St. Theresa Point Youth Court, formerly funded as pilot projects out of the AJI fund, will this year be supported out of the department's base Estimates.
A comprehensive aboriginal justice program known as the First Nations Justice Strategy is being piloted in northwestern Manitoba. This project enables an additional aboriginal magistrates court party to travel through the area disposing of less serious matters in an expeditious, culturally sensitive manner. These parties will work in conjunction with community justice committees in First Nations represented by the aboriginal community of The Pas. A committee is also being established at the Waywayseecappo First Nation.
First Nations policing programs are in operation in eight Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council communities. Six of them operate the DOTC police force and two have opted for the RCMP First Nations Community Policing Services.
The Corrections division has focused on increasing institutional safety and security in the wake of last year's riot at Headingley Correctional Institution. Led by a new assistant deputy minister and aided by Manitoba Government Services, the management and staff have implemented a number of physical upgrades, made policy and procedural changes and enhanced the emergency response team's training and equipment.
The division was guided by the recommendations of former Justice Hughes and aided by the involvement of Mr. John Scurfield. Achieving a safe and secure institutional environment is a goal of everyone in the Corrections division, and I would like to publicly acknowledge the input and co-operation of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union and all the front-line workers, correctional workers, in working together with management to achieve it.
In the Portage Correctional Institute, the Corrections division and the Elizabeth Fry Society are operating a telephone call centre. This gives inmates job experience to assist them in reintegrating into the workforce after their release. Corrections also continues to support the Restorative Resolutions programs jointly operated by the province, Canada and the John Howard Society. This program allows eligible offenders to apologize and make restitution to their victims as an alternative to incarceration. There are 86 persons in this program.
To address the risks that inmates can present to themselves and to others, Corrections has recently developed and is implementing an offender risk assessment and management system. This new system is a culmination of extensive consultation with offender risk management experts and a review of recognized research in Canada and other countries. It will enhance the institution's ability to identify inmate risk factors and respond with appropriate security and programs. The range of programming available to offenders includes partner abuse offender seminars, sexual offender intervention, anger management, victim awareness, criminal thinking errors, social thinking skills, and substance abuse programs.
A number of our departmental improvements and innovations will draw on the Justice Initiatives Fund for initial support and evaluation, but others are being accomplished within existing budgetary allocations and some are even reducing expenditures while simultaneously improving service. For instance, Legal Aid Manitoba has instituted a full-service duty council program which allows financially eligible persons to obtain immediate assistance in setting hearing dates or in resolving matters quickly without the need to make a formal application. This means many persons whose charges would not be serious enough to warrant issuing a Legal Aid certificate will now get free legal service and matters will be resolved more expeditiously, thereby helping to avoid court backlogs. This enhanced service can actually be given at lower cost because of the reduction in the number of formal applications and in the number of Legal Aid certificates issued.
In another policy change, Legal Aid has instituted a review of domestic and civil cases proceeding to trial and has reduced unnecessary litigation by declining to authorize trials in those cases where either the issues or the conduct of the client make a successful outcome extremely unlikely.
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission has introduced a precomplaint conciliation program and a face-to-face mediation process, both of which have led to faster and more agreeable resolutions to many complaints. By reducing the number of matters requiring full investigation and formal arbitration, the commission has freed up investigative staff to provide public education and focus on more complex issues such as allegations of systemic discrimination. The federal government's implementation of new child support guidelines will create a significant volume of inquiries and applications to court to vary existing orders. In order to better serve affected parents, we are setting up a centre to provide legal advice and assistance in varying support orders. The costs of this initiative will be recovered from the federal government.
In an important related sector, I would note that changes last year to The Family Maintenance Act have had a very beneficial result for clients of the Maintenance Enforcement Program. Our increased authority to demand information from employers, family members and associates has enabled the program to find sources of funds that formerly were difficult to identify or locate. This is reflected in the changes and amounts collected in staffing between 1995 and 1996. In 1996, the program collected $39.1 million, an increase of $3.7 million over 1995. In addition, $2.5 million was returned to the government in payments owed by recipients who had to seek financial assistance from employment and income assistance and then assigned their maintenance payments to the province.
Our success can be seen in the fact that our collections improved by 10 percent over 1995 while the number of accounts grew by only 4 percent. We were able to issue 154 percent more garnishing orders on wages, bank deposits and federal payments. Our court summonses have been reduced by 25 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a part of Manitoba Justice once again, and I look forward to explaining our many achievements and initiatives in greater detail during the days ahead. I will look for support and constructive suggestions from members opposite in the course of discussion of these Estimates as we all strive to keep our province as an example of a safe and orderly place in which to live and work. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for St. Johns, have an opening statement?
* (1440)
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Very briefly, Mr. Chair, we certainly have concerns about some of the trends in the funding of various programs in the Department of Justice. In particular, we have been raising concerns about the reductions in funding to the Human Rights Commission in Manitoba, which continue this year, as well, the reductions for victims of crime, particularly those who are injured as a result of crime. We note that there has been a reduction of about 15 percent since 1994 in respect of criminal injuries. As well, in Question Period and other forums we have been expressing our concerns about the abolition of the Law Reform Commission, a move that we think is most unfortunate for the development of good law in Manitoba, and we will pursue that further with the minister.
Another theme that we will develop through the Estimates process will be a follow-up to the Hughes Inquiry and, as well, delve into other related issues respecting Corrections, issues that really came to light as a result of the tragedy at Headingley and resulting government action. As well, related to that, we will be looking at the government's view on alternatives to incarceration, effective alternatives that hopefully will ensure a safer community.
A third area that we will be looking at with the minister is law enforcement in the broadest sense, and that is the apparent pick-and-choose approach to law enforcement as indicated through, for example, the refusal of the ministry to enforce The Remembrance Day Act and to enforce the Criminal Code, particularly the provisions regarding the gun registration scheme.
A fourth area of concern and one that I think has been of particular focus in Question Period has been our demand for a comprehensive response by the government, and not just involving the Department of Justice, to the growing threat of criminal organized gangs in Manitoba.
Our fifth area will be regarding the area of domestic violence, in particular the response of the Prosecutions Division. In a somewhat related vein, we will be pursuing questions regarding maintenance enforcement in Manitoba because it has come to our attention that indeed problems continue in that area. We will be interested in discovering what assurances there will be for aboriginal justice initiatives such as the St. Theresa Youth Court and the Hollow Water project and ensure that the funding will be assured for into the future and discover on what lines those projects now receive their funding.
Finally, we will be reviewing some of the outstanding promises made by the Conservative government in the election of over two years ago. I think those are the general themes that we have. Clearly, there is a more widespread approach than, for example, last year where we concentrated disproportionately on the Headingley riot and the information known or unknown to the minister. Those are my comments.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks. I would like to remind members of the committee that debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1.(a), is deferred until all other items on the Estimates of this department are passed. At this time we would invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.
Is the minister prepared to introduce his staff present to the committee at this time?
Mr. Toews: Yes, I am. With me, I have my deputy minister, Mr. Bruce MacFarlane, Q.C.; Mr. Ron Perozzo, Q.C., the associate deputy minister; and Mr. Pat Sinnott, executive director of Finance.
Mr. Chairperson: The item before the committee is item 1.Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Mackintosh: Here I am looking to explore questions on broader policy issues but as well identify where certain matters should be best raised. I am wondering if the minister can identify where the St. Theresa Point Youth Court funding now is in the Estimates.
Mr. Toews: In answer to that question, the appropriation is No. 5.(c) under the program name Regional Courts.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us now whether he has received any draft report or any indication on the Lavoie inquiry? When does he expect the report to be released publicly is really the central question.
Mr. Toews: I am sorry I missed the--it was the Lavoie report that the member was referring to. I have not yet received any report from the justice who is conducting that particular inquiry, and I cannot state with any certainty as to when that particular report will be received.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister received any indication from counsel to the inquiry or from the commissioner a range of dates when the report is likely to be released?
Mr. Toews: I can indicate that, in respect of that report, the department has had communication from the justice on a number of occasions as to when we could receive that report. The justice, for reasons best known to him, has on various occasions postponed that deadline. He had anticipated completing it earlier this year and has subsequently revised that on a number of occasions. The last report that I recall reviewing indicated that the justice was anticipating that the report would be released at the end of May or later.
* (1450)
Mr. Mackintosh: Given that the Order-in-Council prescribed a report date of June 1996, I am wondering if the minister has made any interventions at all, given the minister's jurisdiction under the Order-in-Council with respect to a date to expedite either the receipt of the report on a more timely basis or whether it is the minister's view that the commissioner should be given full discretion as to when the report is made?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, in respect of that particular issue, especially the June 30, 1996, target date, that was indeed the target date that we had anticipated that the report could be completed by. I might indicate that on a number of occasions the justice has approached departmental staff and has requested an extension of the time required to prepare that report.
My preliminary concern, without getting into the substance of it at this time, is that whether there is or is not any jurisdictional problem, does, in fact, the justice have the required legal authority to continue, and I am assured by my staff that the justice, in fact, has the legal authority to continue.
That being the case, it has been my department's position that the justice should receive an extended period of time in which to complete his report. I know he has been very diligent, working very, very hard in respect of completing this matter. He, on a number of occasions, has approached the department and requested the extension for what the department considers valid reasons, and I simply acknowledged receipt of any documentation that he may have sent over regarding an extension and allowed the matter to proceed in that fashion.
I thought it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to ensure that the justice proceed in a fully exploratory way to ensure that the unfortunate events, in respect of that inquiry, can be understood and measures can be taken to prevent the reoccurrence of that type of situation.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister prepared to share with the committee any of the reasons given by the commissioner for the request for extension of the report time?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, on the occasions that Mr. Justice Schulman has contacted our department in respect of extensions, I understand that the first request for the extension centred around the fact that all evidence had not been heard and he wanted to complete the hearing of evidence and, of course, that was a very reasonable request.
The other requests have been more general, and we have accepted those reasons as appropriate. He was in the process on at least two other occasions that I am aware of, of writing the report, and I understand that he is, in fact, in the process of completing the report at this time. All indications are that the target that Mr. Justice Schulman has set of the end of this month, May 30, should in fact be met but, again, I will not hold Mr. Justice Schulman to that if, in fact, he feels it is appropriate. I think the release of that report to the department is in fact very close, and I look forward to hearing and reading the recommendations of the justice.
Mr. Mackintosh: It may be worthwhile for future reports like this, where the commissioner is a judge of a court, to look at the issue of whether the courts have reprioritized the scheduling of trials or the assignment of trials to judges who are also commissioners for areas of broad public interest. I am wondering if such accommodation was done by the Queen's Bench, if the minister has any knowledge of this.
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question from the member for St. Johns. The issue of the time limits for any report is of course one that is always of concern. Sometimes the delay of a report can in fact contribute to an aggravation of a problem, and we certainly are alive to that fact.
In this particular situation, members of the department met specifically with Chief Justice Hewak as well as Justice Schulman and counsel for the commission. At that time, issues of timing and release of the report were discussed. It is always a very sensitive issue in order to determine what is an appropriate time to cut off an inquiry or to set time limits on an inquiry. I do not need to remind the member about the Somalia affair, where one could argue that the goverment and indeed the commissioners set out, for all intents and purposes, to accomplish a specific task within what is initially considered a very reasonable time limit, and, as one proceeds down these roads, suddenly issues develop, issues, for example, in the Somalia Inquiry regarding the co-operation of senior officials in the armed forces. So these were aggravating factors that were no doubt not seen by government or the commissioners when they began that type of an inquiry.
* (1500)
I know that in my previous portfolio as the Minister of Labour, I had occasion to appoint Judge Enns to review The Remembrance Day Act, and this was a particularly thorny issue but clearly an issue whose time had come in order to review it. This was a committee that was struck, yes, as the chair, Judge Enns chaired it, but it was a multifaceted committee. It had representatives of Chambers of Commerce, labour and all the major veterans' organizations in Manitoba and northwest Ontario. In that particular case, the members met, and indeed there were unanimous recommendations given by that committee. The chair was able to write a report in a very expeditious period of time, and indeed it was a very valuable report forming the basis of amendments to our Remembrance Day Act. So, in some cases, the aggravating factors are not there, the consensus and the need for change is present and one is able to move very, very expeditiously.
The other issue of course is the question of judicial independence in these matters. Although technically many of these judges act as commissioners and not as judges, it is a very difficult thing for the Attorney General to suggest to a judge the time frame in which he or she should prepare that report. So, as the Attorney General, I have to rely on the expertise and the good judgment of the commissioner who has been appointed to weigh all factors, including the public interest, in proceeding expeditiously and essentially give that commissioner a free rein in terms of the time limit. If one, for example, set a time limit and then the time limit expires with a consequent loss of jurisdiction, then one could be viewed as politically interfering if one chose then not to renew that mandate or to continue that mandate. So that is a very difficult issue. I think in most situations in this province, the justices and the judges who have been appointed commissioners have, in fact, met their mandate in a timely fashion and have provided the government of the day with recommendations which the government can then consider in the overall implementation of policy in the development of legislation.
Mr. Mackintosh: The receipt of this report will be my first experience with a commission of inquiry report, and I am wondering if the minister can tell the committee what the protocol is in terms of the receipt of the report by his office versus the timing for the receipt of the report by the public generally. In other words, does his office receive the report in advance of the public release?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, obviously, the case is different in the release of any report. Governments receive reports from time to time, and specific action is required of governments. Obviously, it is trite to say that, in every case that I am familiar with, the government receives the report before the general public receives it because it is the government of the day that has commissioned the report and so the commissioner of the inquiry fulfills his or her obligation under the commission to forward that report to the authorizing or initiating department.
So the question then is, when is the appropriate time to release it. Usually, I know in a number of cases that I have been involved in many, many years ago, when I was a member of the Attorney General's department, these matters were turned over to the political people, and the political people reviewed the reports and looked at them and released them in an appropriate fashion. At times, certain initial steps have to be taken before that can be released to the public, but certainly, in this particular case, there is a commitment by the government to release that report to the public. I do not think I would be prepared to say what period of time that would take. That is obviously dependent on the nature of the recommendations and whether it would be required for the government to hold it any longer than is reasonably necessary.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister then saying that the timing of the release of the report to the public is not the decision of the commissioner but rather of the minister or the government?
Mr. Toews: I would have to review the specifics of the commission that was granted in this particular case, but all commissions of inquiry that I am familiar with, in fact, are released to the authorizing government or the initiating government, and that document is forwarded to the minister or to the body that has requested the report, and at that time the decision is made in every situation as to when an appropriate time is to release that document. Generally speaking, if there are no administrative issues that have to be dealt with or there are very small administrative issues, this can be done in a very expeditious manner. But there is of necessity always a delay in the receipt of any report that I have ever been involved with, and I do not anticipate that this particular report and its release should deviate from the standard that is normally acceptable.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that the government has created a new, I think it is called division of public safety with Wyman Sangster, I believe as the director. I am just wondering where that fits in terms of the Estimates book. Where does Mr. Sangster's position come in the Estimates book? Is it under Victims Assistance, or where?
* (1510)
Mr. Toews: I can indicate very generally that there is not a specific appropriation for that entire division but that Mr. Sangster will be present here at the table for the appropriations 2.(e) and 2.(f). Perhaps that would be an appropriate time to direct the member's question to myself or to the Chair, and when Mr. Sangster is here, I can have the benefit of his counsel.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister can tell us where Mr. Sangster's salary is then because it does not appear that there is any accommodation for a change of salary in either 2.(e) or 2.(f).
Mr. Toews: I remember in my years as a public servant that from time to time I had requests for resources in the branch that I was either heading or a part of, and I would ask for this assistance. I know that there was a lot of creative accounting done from time to time, and I am not suggesting that this is what is done here, but this is a very complex matter.
I know at times administrators can start out with 2,000 positions, juggle them in the air for about half an hour and come down with 2,001 and then try to challenge people to find them. Again, I emphasize that that is not the case here, and my staff, in fact, has provided me with a very expansive briefing note talking about the Public Safety Branch, and perhaps this will give the member some of the background that he needs in order to address his concerns.
I could start off generally stating that the Public Safety Branch of the Criminal Justice division was formed in January 1997, to be responsible for all victim and crime prevention programming, policy development and planning in relation to public safety. Now, this unit includes the Women's Advocacy Program, the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, the Child Witness Program, the victims services co-ordinator, crime prevention, the Law Enforcement Review Agency and the provincial firearms program.
The branch is responsible for making recommendations for the delivery of services and benefits under The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, and the transfer of the responsibility for the programs to the branch has been conducted in stages to ensure a seamless transition for both the staff and clients of these departments. The Public Safety Branch is accountable to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Criminal Justice division, and I should indicate for the record that Mr. Allan Fineblit did join us here at the table. He was not here originally but joined us later on, and indeed the reference that I have made to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General of the Criminal Justice division is, in fact, Mr. Fineblit.
The resources in the budget for this branch are located in a number of appropriations, and I will get specifically to the point that was raised by the member for St. Johns in due course, but all of the victims' services come under the appropriation 04-2E, the Criminal Injuries Compensation under 04-2F. Law Enforcement Review Agency comes under 04-2D(1) and 04-2D(2) (Program 4). Crime Prevention comes under 04-2D(3). Gun Control and the Firearms Program is 04-2D(1) and 04-2D(2) (Program 3), and the specific appropriation where the salary of Mr. Sangster is found is under the Public Safety General Expenses, and that is under 04-2A (1), and another appropriation for Public Safety General Expenses is found in 04-1C(2).
Just for the member's information, Public Safety is located on the 14th floor of the Woodsworth Building and, give or take, 20 staff are involved in the various responsibility areas with a secondment from Corrections to assist with a victims' study and criminal injuries.
I am also aware that there is a secondment from the Women's Directorate for a period of six months to assist in the management of the office during the transition period. As indicated, that branch is headed up by Mr. Wyman Sangster.
* (1520)
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the increase of one SY on 04-2A Salaries and Employee Benefits the position of director of Public Safety then? I notice it goes from four SYs last year to five SYs this year.
Mr. Toews: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the member for St. Johns is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: The Women's Advocacy Program, I understand, has since its inception been part of Prosecutions. I ask the minister what difference in program delivery the department sees as a result of the move from Prosecutions to the director of Public Safety's ambit.
Mr. Toews: There are a number of reasons why the department took the initiative of moving the Women's Advocacy directorate or branch under the Public Safety area. First of all, I think that as the nature of justice issues change in our society it is not sufficient anymore to simply look at the Department of Justice or the department of the Attorney General as simply prosecutions on the one hand, which entails simply the suppression of criminal activity and, secondly, the delivery of legal services, that is the in-house law firm for the government. I think for many years that is the way the Attorney General's department operated, and perhaps it was a much simpler society back then. For whatever reason, things changed.
The department changed a lot in respect of not just in reaction to changes in society but, indeed, changes in organization. So instead of simply having Prosecutions and Legal Services to take up a department, Corrections was added to that department, and that gave an entirely new complexion to the department. As I recall, many years ago the Corrections used to be in a department called Community Services and Corrections, and it was felt that it would be appropriate to move Corrections into a unified department with the Department of the Attorney General, hence the Justice department essentially taking up functions of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Some provinces such as New Brunswick and, indeed, the federal government still have that type of division, and they do it for various reasons. I think in Manitoba, given that on a population basis we are much smaller and that we can more effectively deliver services, it was felt that this amalgamation would assist in the rationalization of the delivery of services so that people of Manitoba are best served.
This is not an exception when we are dealing with the Women's Advocacy Program. As the nature of the department changed, and as the demands of society increased in order to address new and growing problems, various branches were created. Just looking at some of these that I mentioned earlier, if we talk about things like the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, the Child Witness Support Program, the victims' services co-ordinator, Crime Prevention, and, indeed, even the Law Enforcement Review Agency, those were all, in a relative sense, recent additions or changes to the Department of Justice. Aspects of the provincial firearms program, of course, evolved as federal legislation changed, and so it was necessary, in view of all these complex pressures and demands to ensure that as we continued to meet these demands that our administrative structure in fact is such that ensures that we remember that it is the people of Manitoba that we are serving and that bureaucracies do not simply reproduce themselves because they are there. So in respect of the Women's Advocacy Program, it was felt that there was a common element with many of these other programs, the Victim Witness/Assistance Program, the Child Witness Program, the victims' services co-ordinator, and, indeed, Crime Prevention, recognizing that women in many respects, because of economic situations, social situations, cultural situations, are sometimes in a more vulnerable position than others in our community.
So it was felt that bringing that into the department under the Public Safety Branch was an appropriate organizational way to begin to and continue to deal with the particular problems of women.
Although the initial administrative changes do not, in themselves, signal any change in any programming, what they do is enable the senior officials who report to me and indeed my colleagues in cabinet, enable us to review in a more comprehensive way the nature of the services that are being provided and to determine which services, in fact, are meeting their function, meeting the needs of the people of Manitoba. In that context, we then view the Women's Advocacy Program in this branch.
* (1530)
The other point that I would like to raise is that as a result of a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the court had suggested that records kept by Prosecutions branch in respect of women in particular types of prosecutions could be more vulnerable to production if they were left in the hands of the prosecution and to take those documents, or records, and leave them in the Public Safety Branch, a step removed from the Prosecutions branch, would service in an administrative way to enhance the privacy of many of these important records relating to individual women's problems or concerns or treatment.
So it was not only from an administrative point of view, with a view to enhancing the delivery of existing programs and with a view to expanding programs where appropriate or changing programs where appropriate but also a very specific motivation; that is, to enhance the protection of some of these very sensitive records consistent in a manner with the directions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that one of the benefits of linking the Women's Advocacy Program with Prosecutions would be that there would be a nexus between the Family Violence Court and the Women's Advocacy Program to ensure that all women, for example, coming as complainants and victims would be connected with the Women's Advocacy Program.
I am not convinced that that objective was fulfilled under the previous organization, given, particularly, the Lisa Grover [phonetic] case as one example, but I am wondering if the minister, the department, has considered whether the separation of the administration of the Family Violence Court and the Women's Advocacy Program will cause communication problems and a lack of outreach by the Women's Advocacy Program to victims or survivors of domestic violence.
Mr. Toews: I would like to emphasize, without detracting from what I said, that the Women's Advocacy Program still remains a part of the Criminal Justice branch. That is still very, very important, and so what that means is that there is essentially the same communication mechanisms and the same level of information sharing. The department has various internal committees which, in fact, share information up to and including the executive management committee, which shares information on a departmental basis.
I think the real benefit of bringing this program under the Public Safety Branch is, again, the rationalization of the services that are being delivered and a refocusing of the importance of women's issues to the department.
One of the things that the member may know is that many years ago in the Department of the Attorney General, when the function was simply to prosecute, the particular concerns of women and the particular needs of women in the criminal justice system were often seen as simply an adjunct to prosecutions. That was, I think, quite unfortunate. The very legitimate needs of women were often forgotten in the appropriate goal of obtaining convictions, but convictions often were attempted to be obtained at any cost. So I can recall during the years that I was a prosecutor that in cases of domestic abuse, we recognized that there was a problem, but the answer to the problem was always seen in the context of prosecutions.
How do we solve this problem of domestic abuse by the utilization of the tool of prosecution? Very simply put, it was a clumsy device, and often police officers, recognizing that there was a serious problem in the area of domestic abuse, and in many cases, it was the male partner in a domestic situation, they would bring this male partner under charge and bring him to the criminal court system.
Well, that is essentially what happens now, but in many cases the women were reluctant to testify, and there was virtually no support given to these women. The answer at that time, and thankfully that has changed, was in all cases where they refused to testify, essentially contempt proceedings were brought against these women, and, in fact, they were the ones who were thrown in jail.
So, again, that was an attempt to deal with a very serious problem in a very clumsy way, and I think, in retrospect, in the wrong way. What we are trying to do now, the department is, through the Public Safety Branch is to indicate that problems such as domestic abuse are simply not an adjunct to a criminal prosecution but are part of a broader social problem, and the Public Safety Branch, through a branch like Women's Advocacy and Victims Assistance, recognizes and focuses primarily on those types of victims' issues rather than proceeding as simply an adjunct to a criminal prosecution.
* (1540)
I think we have been able to retain the best of the old system in terms of ensuring a clear channel of communication and a high level of information sharing but also the new emphasis of ensuring that Prosecutions policy is sensitive to the concerns of victims generally and women specifically.
So, while I share the member's concern that in any bureaucracy when you divide matters up there can be the problem of lack of communication developing, I do not think that this is the case here. I do not think our experience has indicated that, and I think as we work toward improving the administration as we are putting it into place, I think we will see very concrete benefits of this emphasis and approach.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, it is not clear from the revised organizational chart effective March of '97 whether Women's Advocacy, for example, or the Criminal Injuries Comp Board report to the director of Public Safety. What is the responsibility of that director for those programs?
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed at 3:43 p.m.
The committee resumed at 3:53 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order.
Mr. Toews: I appreciate the indulgence.
I am looking at Schedule 2 of page 7 of the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review on the Departmental Expenditure Estimates. The organizational chart that I am referring to, revised March 1997, indicates that Public Safety has reporting to it: Crime Prevention, Victims Programs, Women's Advocacy, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the Public Safety along with Administration, Prosecutions, Criminal Justice Policy, Law Enforcement Services, Provincial Police (RCMP) and Aboriginal Policing, then all directly report to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Allan Fineblit, whom I referred to earlier.
I think that some of the confusion that may have been caused by that graph is the fact that this is an 8-by-11 page and they had to sort of take it around the corner, so to speak. So it is tucked under Community Corrections but there is no line there. Hopefully, we are referring to the same document.
Mr. Mackintosh: So I take it then that there is a direct line of authority from Women's Advocacy, for example, to the director of Public Safety.
Mr. Toews: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister also then explain the relationship between the Criminal Injuries Comp Board and the director of Public Safety, because I understand that Criminal Injuries Comp Board is indeed a board? It is the Workers Comp Board. If there is some level of administrative independence there, I am just wondering what their relationship is.
Mr. Toews: It should be noted, and obviously graphs of this nature have to be concise by their very nature, but the mechanism depicted here certainly does not indicate that the judicial functions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which in fact are carried out presently by the Workers Compensation Board, are in fact reporting to the Victims Programs.
Rather, this is simply indicative of an administrative linkage or liaison with the department, and it is through this liaison that ultimately it has its linkage with the Public Safety director and the assistant deputy attorney general, but the judicial function is independent of the Attorney General's department, or the Department of Justice, and this is simply the administrative linkage, in many ways similar to my experience as the Minister of Labour where the Workers Compensation Board reported, in essence, to the minister through the function of the act. The minister was responsible for The Workers Compensation Act, but certainly no judicial decisions were made, nor would it be appropriate for the minister to be involved in any judicial decisions, including any decisions that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board might make.
I would just also indicate, for the member's convenience, that all these circles on the chart indicate a liaison situation rather than a direct control. So, for example, if one looks at the provincial police, RCMP, clearly the department does not direct the RCMP. We contract for services with the RCMP, but the policing function is, in many respects, independent of the department. Similarly, with aboriginal policing, the DOTC, I think, would be the prime example of that kind of a situation, the Board of Review and some of the other circled entities rather than the square or rectangular entities.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I think the analogy of the minister as between the Workers Compensation Board and the Minister of Justice is worth pursuing, because my concern here is that we have a Criminal Injuries Comp Board which appears, at least from the chart, to report to Victims Programs, which reports to the director of Public Safety, which reports to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for Criminal Justice, which reports to the Deputy Attorney General, which reports to the minister.
It is my understanding instead, and it could be wrong, and there could be a change, but that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has independence, not only insofar as judicial or quasi or administrative decision making as a skilful tribunal and administrative law, but also has some relative independence insofar as the administration of that regime. I am wondering if the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is in fact wrongly placed under the Victims Programs and director of Public Safety, and does it not have instead a different relationship to the minister?
* (1600)
Mr. Toews: Clearly, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in exercising its statutory duties and obligations is in a very different position than, for example, the Deputy Attorney General would be. The Deputy Attorney General, while exercising very important, independent prosecutorial functions does report to the Attorney General in respect of administrative concerns and duties in the department, in the same way the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Fineblit, or indeed Associate Deputy Minister Mr. Perozzo, each of them has very important roles. One could question: Is it appropriate to have them reporting to anyone, or should they report directly to the minister? I think that, in view of the great measure of independence that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has in following its statutory mandate, it is important that there be a communication mechanism or liaison with the department.
Now, for whatever administrative reason, and there has been a massive restructuring of our department over the last couple of years, it was seen that this would be the most efficient place to place the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. So this is probably--and I stand to be corrected by my staff, but something that has been looked at very, very recently, and it was felt that this was the most appropriate. If the member has any specific concerns as to why the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in its liaison function, should be reporting to someone else, indeed to myself, I would certainly be willing to entertain any suggestions and recommendations in that respect.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister admit that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's administrative independence, relative as it is, is going to be affected by changes in the department which will bring administration from what was the board into the department itself? In other words, we are not simply talking about an organizational chart. What we are talking about is structural changes that will bring the Criminal Injuries Compensation closer into the Department of Justice ongoing administration.
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to indicate that some of the statements by the member opposite are perhaps in anticipation of certain changes that may well be proposed in respect of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. At this time I have no intention, the government has no intention of bringing legislation in to change this reporting structure. That will be done over a longer period of time. We want to ensure that, as we change that reporting structure and who carries out that judicial function, we are mindful of some of the statements that the member for St. Johns has raised.
One of my officials has indicated that the straight line should in fact be a dotted line, indicating rather, again I want to emphasize, a liaison issue or liaison relationship rather than an operational subordination to either the director of Public Safety or to the Victims Programs. So the changes that we will be making structurally have not yet been determined. That will be a process of deliberation and consultation to ensure that victims continue to be served in the best possible way by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Mr. Mackintosh: In other words, the explanation on page 43 of the Detailed Estimates that program responsibilities for the Criminal Injuries Comp Board has been transferred--I mean, the word is transferred, in the past tense, to the Department of Justice--is actually not yet completed, and, furthermore, following that, is it then expected that the reduction of an appropriation for the board is premature?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, in respect of any changes that need to be made, either for the program responsibilities for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the board itself and, indeed, the wage replacement, that must all be done through legislation. That has not yet been done.
It is the intention of this government to deal with the wage replacement issue in this session if possible, but the issue of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the way in which it shall in future deliver its services will be an issue for the Legislature to decide and to discuss and will not be done in simply an administrative fashion.
So, in that respect, the word "transferred" is not accurate. That is correct.
* (1610)
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister intend to introduce legislation this session to deal with this matter?
Mr. Toews: Which matter?
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister intending to bring in legislation this legislative session to deal with what I understand from his comments will be necessary in order to fulfill what is described in the note on page 43; that is, program responsibilities being transferred from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to the Department of Justice?
Mr. Toews: In respect of the issue of the wage replacement, yes, legislation will be brought in. The much larger issue relating to the structure and composition of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, for that I do not have any legislation prepared at this time, and I think I can safely assure the member that I will not be introducing that in this session.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the position of director of Public Safety one that was advertised? Was there a public competition for that position?
Mr. Toews: This was something that occurred prior to my time, but I do understand from speaking to the departmental officials that there was, in fact, a competition within the department and that there were a number of applicants and that Mr. Sangster was the successful applicant.
Mr. Mackintosh: In other words, is the minister saying that there was an internal posting of a vacant position or a position and that all members of the Department of Justice were invited to apply for that?
Mr. Toews: I am advised that the notice for this particular position was circulated to all people within the public safety area, and I think it is very important to point out why that was done.
The creation of the director of Public Safety did not involve the creation of a new position. So, in effect, the successful applicant, in addition to being the successful applicant, had to bring his own or her own staff year with them. So, clearly, that presented certain limitations as to how the department could respond, but, very fortunately, we were able to find a suitable candidate within the public safety area who, fortunately, indeed, had his own staff year that he was able to bring to the position and thereby ensure that we could move forward in this program.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, now I am confused. My understanding is that there was no division for Public Safety pre-existing the director's appointment, so how could anyone bring an SY from Public Safety?
Mr. Toews: What I indicated very clearly is, from the public safety area. I did not indicate division at all. That division was created later, and the member is correct that that division was created later. It was a staff year that Mr. Sangster occupied. He was one of the individuals notified of the position, and I assume that through the regular course of events he was interviewed, along with the other applicants, or applicant, and he was the successful applicant.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee how many applicants there were for that position of director of Public Safety?
Mr. Toews: I am advised by my officials that there were two.
Mr. Mackintosh: On a related matter, I understand that Mr. Graceffo has recently been appointed to the position of assistant deputy minister, Corrections. I am wondering if there was a competition for that position, whether it was open to the public generally or whether that was only for members of the department.
Mr. Toews: I think it is important that I go back a little bit into the history of that particular position, very, very important position.
As the member for St. Johns will recall, the prior assistant deputy minister, Mr. Ben Thiessen, had been appointed assistant deputy minister as a result of a national competition, and one of the participants in that competition was in fact the present assistant deputy minister, Mr. Greg Graceffo. The member will recall last year that there was a disturbance at Headingley Jail, and in the aftermath of that disturbance Mr. Ben Thiessen took a leave of absence from the department pursuant to the deferred salary position.
I think it should be made clear that Mr. Thiessen did take a deferred salary. He had been paying into that deferred salary program. As the member may know, there is a deferred salary program in government. For example, you get four-fifths of your salary for four years, and then you can take the fifth year off and be paid four-fifths of your salary, in effect, the amount of money that you saved by only collecting four-fifths through the other number of years. I am just using the example four-fifths, because I think that was the case in Mr. Thiessen's case. It can be for a shorter period of time.
* (1620)
Now Mr. Thiessen indicated when he went on his deferred salary leave that he would not be coming back as the assistant deputy minister, and he is in fact assured of a position equivalent to, I believe, an executive director in our department. We anticipate Mr. Thiessen coming back as an executive director in a position in the department of the Attorney General some time in September. That is my best information at this time. Certainly there are many tasks and roles that he could perform in whatever position he is eventually placed, but he is guaranteed, essentially, an executive director's position in accordance with the leave provisions that he was a part of.
Now, obviously, we required someone to fill that very demanding position of assistant deputy minister, Corrections. A natural choice came to mind when one reviews the comments of Mr. Justice Hughes in his report. I think Mr. Justice Hughes spoke very glowingly of the capability and the determination, the dedication of Mr. Greg Graceffo who was acting in the assistant deputy minister's position. I think if you read that report there may even be, not a direct suggestion perhaps, my memory fails me, but certainly an indication that this would be the type of person that the department required in Corrections in this very, very difficult time.
Mr. Greg Graceffo has an extensive background in Corrections not just with the provincial government but, indeed, with the federal government. I believe he served--not time, I was going to say--in an official capacity, yes, in Her Majesty's service at Stony Mountain but not as a sentenced prisoner, indeed as one of the administrators, and he served in an exemplary fashion as a public servant with that institution for a period of 17 years, I believe, if I have not said it already. He came to the provincial government and worked in the Courts Division, and I believe he was under the Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Marvin Bruce at that time and then came into Corrections.
Now, as the acting assistant deputy minister, he was obviously very instrumental in trying to normalize the department after the disturbance in April of last year. He spent an awful lot of time, both with me as a new minister and the prior minister, in assuring the public and fulfilling the demands set out in the Hughes report. I think Mr. Graceffo lived up to the expectations that Mr. Justice Hughes saw in that particular individual. He performed his duties very, very well at a very, very difficult time. Accordingly, given that he had been one of the candidates for the original assistant deputy minister's position, on the advice of the Civil Service Commission, he was in fact appointed assistant deputy minister on a permanent basis. He continues to serve in that capacity, and I must say that he continues to serve the province of Manitoba in an exemplary fashion. So that is a bit of a history about why Mr. Graceffo is the permanent Assistant Deputy Minister of Corrections today.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee whether there has been a policy in the department that directors and assistant deputy ministers be appointed only after open public competition, and whether such a policy existed particularly in the department of Attorney General?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that although the situation here was unique, there was nothing that was done that was inappropriate in the sense of the appropriate civil service regulations or rules being avoided. They, in fact, were followed in this particular situation. I purposely want to focus on this particular position. It is very difficult for me to say what was done in any particular situation without those facts being put to me directly.
What I can say is that generally speaking, and I do not know of any exceptions, we follow what the law requires and what the civil service policy requires or allows. So in respect of this unique situation, given that he was an applicant for that assistant deputy minister's position, given that this occurred, that he took over the position of acting ADM within a six-month period of the competition, that it was felt by the department that advice from the Civil Service Commission should be sought in order to determine whether another competition would be necessary.
Again, in these kinds of situations, the waiving of a competition would not be unique. For example, if you had a sheriff's officer competition, somebody came in second place; the first place person, for one reason or another, within a short time of appointment, could not carry out the responsibilities or something else happened, or some other intervening factor took place, then it would be quite appropriate for the second-place candidate to take the position, if offered to him without a further competition, if it was seen that there were appropriate candidates that could be relied upon.
Not wishing to leave anything to chance in this particular case, I understand that the deputy minister of the department wrote to the Civil Service Commissioner, explained the uniqueness of the situation and received the advice from the commission which resulted in the particular consequence of events leading to the appointment of Mr. Graceffo as the ADM without a second competition taking place.
* (1630)
Mr. Mackintosh: Was Mr. Graceffo the second-place contender, if you will, in the earlier competition?
Mr. Toews: I understand that he was, in fact, one of the top three applicants, and I am advised of that. I do not have any personal knowledge of that, but given the recommendations or the advice of the commission, it was felt that it was appropriate and nothing untoward in the appointment of Mr. Graceffo to that position without a further competition.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the Civil Service Commission make any comment to the department about the appointment of Mr. Sangster then to the position of director of Public Safety without a public competition?
Mr. Toews: In my former position as Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, there are certain areas which are referred to as delegated authority, meaning that the department itself would have the jurisdiction, or maybe not that formal a word, but the authority to make appointments after an appropriate competition which is determined according to the department--can make that appointment without the Civil Service Commission involvement. That is the delegated authority.
In respect of Mr. Sangster's position, the position was one which fell within this delegated authority. Therefore, the advice of the commission was neither requested nor received. That is, the salary and the position were not at a level that would require such a step and fell within the delegated authority of the particular department.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
I believe, and I could be subject to a question on this, this delegated authority is something that is negotiated between the department and the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission clearly retains overall jurisdiction but then delegates this authority to the departments.
Mr. Mackintosh: Whether the positions may be, as the minister describes, delegated authority or not, is it the view of the government and the minister that the various directors now in the department may be appointed without open competition? I am looking--you know, what is the policy now in the department?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, I think, just in order to keep the discussion within a very particular parameter, it is very important to understand that this competition involving Mr. Sangster did not involve the creation of a new staff year.
I think one very important example that can illustrate the issue on a broader basis is the competitions, if I can loosely refer to them as that, that took place in respect of in the Criminal Prosecutions branch, and that is there were certain senior Crowns' positions that became available, but these senior Crown positions were positions in title only. They had no independent staff year, they had no independent salary, so all that one acquired in participating in this competition was a title and the existing salary. This is not the type of competition that one could invite people from outside of that particular area to compete in because it would then involve, I guess, a more sophisticated version of musical chairs. You bring another person in, another person loses his or her seat.
So the competition in terms of reorganization in that Criminal Prosecutions branch involved a reorganization, but everybody had to bring their own staff year or chair, if I can continue to use that analogy, to this particular competition. They had to bring existing salary dollars from whatever source.
With Mr. Sangster's position, it was exactly the same thing. In order to compete, if I can use that term in this context, for this position, you had to have certain things. Number 1, you have to have a staff year, and you have to have some existing salary or dollar allocation. Mr. Sangster had those. Similarly in the area of criminal prosecutions, when these senior prosecutors were appointed, we relied on internal people to compete for those positions. Some became senior prosecutors and others, those who were unsuccessful for those positions, did not lose their employment with the Attorney General but were placed in more appropriate places in view of the restructuring.
So it is not a competition in the classical sense where there is a vacant staff year and unattached salary dollars. I think that distinction has to be made very, very clear that we are not dealing with the ordinary competition in the sense that there is a vacant position. There is no vacant position. It is more of a reorganizational device rather than the adding of another body to the public service.
* (1640)
Mr. Mackintosh: Where was Mr. Sangster's SY last fiscal year?
Mr. Toews: I am advised that the SY came out of a Legislative Counsel position.
Mr. Mackintosh: I noticed that the SYs in Legislative Counsel remain unchanged at 21. I am wondering, there does not appear to be any movement of an SY from Legislative Counsel to Prosecutions.
Mr. Toews: I will try to explain the explanation here, and I trust that this is the correct sequence of events. I recall the little example I told about the 2,000 being juggled up in the air and they come down as 2,001. I am assured that is not what happened here, and I specifically raised that issue.
What in fact I understand is that if you look at the '95-96--and I stand to be corrected, but I am assured that is what the appropriation was from '95-96--was 22 in Legislative Counsel. In '96-97, there is what they call an Adjusted Vote transfer, which then brings the number to 21, and so the number continues at 21 for '97-98. The one staff year of '95-96 that seemed to have disappeared out of Legislative Counsel was as a result of that Adjusted Vote transfer and now has appeared in this area, that is, the Public Safety area, the position that Mr. Sangster was occupying.
Mr. Mackintosh: The notion of an Adjusted Vote transfer is not explained by the Estimates for '96-97 which show 21 staff years for that fiscal year. Where does that Adjusted Vote transfer, which is language I have never heard before, show up in the official records of the appropriations of the Legislature? This is the appropriation from the Legislature. It cannot be changed by administrative decision.
Mr. Toews: I do not want to risk putting things on the record that I am not explaining properly. This is probably more of an accounting function, and what I am prepared to do is to have members of my staff explain it in detail for the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) in a written form. We do not have that information here in a manner which I am sufficiently satisfied will explain the situation. So I will take that as notice and provide the member with a written explanation of the process, including this Adjusted Vote transfer and the policy behind this Adjusted Vote transfer, how this occurs, how long this has occurred for, and hopefully that will satisfy the member. If the member needs additional information, I can provide that to him as he requests.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if that could be done in the next several days, in other words, in time for me to raise any supplementary question that may follow from the written material. I know staff will appreciate that my concern is that I am sitting here and I say okie dokie to 21 SYs in Leg Counsel and 21 this year in the Leg Counsel and in fact that is not the case.
In fact, according to what the minister has said now, there has been actually a transfer of one SY from Leg Counsel over Prosecutions. So, I mean, I have to have confidence that the Estimates as presented to the House are those that have been approved.
Perhaps if the minister could assure the committee that the response could be put together before the end of Estimates, and I do not even know when we are finished here, but if they could be done in the next several days.
Mr. Toews: Yes, I can provide that for the member within the next number of days, couple of days, and I will endeavour to ensure that is here before the end of Estimates, provided that the member does not close his Estimates today.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just for the record, it has been my understanding that the position of Deputy Attorney General is one that has been filled as a result of an open public competition. I wonder if the minister can tell me if my understanding is correct or not.
Mr. Toews: That is correct. I understand that the Deputy Attorney General was appointed in 1993 as a consequence of a national competition, and Mr. MacFarlane was appointed at that time.
* (1650)
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my preference to pursue always answers to questions, but I will leave the minister with the important notion that we support that, particularly for the department of Attorney General. I am sure the minister recognizes the inherent value of public competitions, not only for the deputy position, which in other departments would tend to be a political appointment, considering the policy sensitivities of different administrations, but that also in the department of Attorney General it is important that, as a general rule, public competitions be held for the director positions. I say as a general rule, and I think he has explained the situation with regard to Mr. Graceffo that may or may not, but it certainly is an arguable point that that appointment was well founded.
I just leave the minister with that notion. He may want to respond or may not.
Mr. Toews: I certainly think that, as a matter of principle, the government adheres to the requirements of The Civil Service Act in certain situations, an example being the appointment of Mr. Graceffo. There was no, I think, proper requirement for an additional competition, and he is certainly filling that capacity.
I take the comments of the member for St. Johns as very thoughtful and important that the civil service, in fact, must retain a certain measure of independence and objectivity from the political people. I think that the failure to ensure an appropriate degree of objectivity in the process is very, very important.
I am certainly mindful of that given my own experience in the public service. I know that, in certain situations, I competed for positions. I can tell the member that when I first began in the Attorney General's department in 1976, I was hired as an articling student as a result of a competition coming out of law school. I then became a Crown attorney in, I think, June of 1977, and I do not believe that there was any outside competition. I walked into a position, so to speak. It was an internal competition which I took, and then when I transferred in 1979 to Winnipeg, I was essentially transferred to the Legal Services branch and no competition took place there. There was a vacancy. I was interviewed by a director and the director hired me. I do not know the legal technicalities of that, but I assume everything was done appropriately.
Generally speaking, yes, it is very important to ensure the highest level of candidates are selected and placed into the appropriate position. So I thank the member for those comments, and I know my own experience in the civil service has been that the Civil Service Commission, whether it acts directly or through delegated authority, attempts to ensure that the provisions of the legislative regime that govern its activities in the appointment of civil servants are followed.
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee when the parental responsibility act is going to be proclaimed, and why is it that it has not been proclaimed yet? It was enacted about a year ago.
Mr. Toews: I am pleased that the member for St. Johns has raised the issue of the parental responsibility act, a very, very important initiative of this government. As the member is aware, the area of criminal law in terms of policy and legislation is primarily a function of the federal Parliament, and so the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act are in fact acts that the provincial Attorney General administers and enforces, not by way of constitutional obligation but through delegation by the federal government. While we attempt to work things out with our federal counterparts, often we feel that the federal Parliament is not sensitive enough to regional needs or regional concerns, and the broad policies reflected in either the Criminal Code or the Young Offenders Act do not address specific needs that might arise in a particular jurisdiction.
The Parental Responsibility Act is, in fact, one of these initiatives where the provincial government has, in its area of constitutional legislative authority, decided to proceed to advance a policy goal that we feel is missing in our Young Offenders Act. Being unable to directly effect change in the Young Offenders Act, because we do not have the legislative authority, we in this Legislature have passed The Parental Responsibility Act. That particular act is seen as one tool in a vast array of tools that are necessary in order to ensure that not just law enforcement officials but citizens of our community have speedy access to justice. The justice system must serve our community, so we want to make that justice system as responsive to the community as possible.
If one examines The Parental Responsibility Act, we note that many of the concepts underlying that act are already found in the common law, but I think this is a very clear example of codification of the common law and an improvement of the common law to ensure that parents who owe a duty of care to the community in respect of the actions of their children are also responsible for those actions when they deliberately or negligently fail to carry out their responsibilities. So I am very pleased with our government's initiative in that respect.
* (1700)
In order to ensure that administratively the policy and legislative goals of that particular statute are carried out, my department has been working to put into place the appropriate administrative infrastructure so that this will, in fact, accomplish the policy purposes that it was intended to. So we are working on that, and I am assured that we will be in a position to proclaim that act in a short period of time. I am hoping that it is certainly within six months. My officials advise me that it can be done within a period of six months or less, but I am still waiting to see what the exact time frame will be. I am hoping that it is going to be shorter than that, but I anticipate somewhere in the range of six months or shortly under that period of time.
Mr. Mackintosh: My reason for the question was that the legislation appears to be fairly straightforward in terms of any resulting administrative rearrangement. It really is a codification, a clarification, perhaps an emphasizing of a private civil remedy that the Small Claims Court is there to respond to. I am wondering what administrative arrangements the minister is referring to.
Mr. Toews: To give the member some indication of the nature of the problems that we need to address in setting up this infrastructure, I go back to some of my initial comments, and that relates to the jurisdiction that the federal Parliament has in the area of young offenders. As the member recognizes, under the Young Offenders Act there are certain privacy requirements, and in setting out how we determine who, in fact, are the parents of a particular young offender, these statutory requirements set by the federal Parliament must be observed and taken into account, so that when a citizen then initiates a process against parents, that we ensure that these, in fact, are the correct parents of the particular offender.
So, again, this is an example where existing federal legislation, while not expansive enough to address regional concerns such as the ones that motivated this particular act, must now be taken into account while we are implementing specific responses in the area of our jurisdiction. As the member appreciates, this relates to the issue of federal paramountcy in respect of criminal law, criminal law, of course, being the basis upon which the Young Offenders Act is passed.
Some other aspects that have caused some delay in preparing the infrastructure relate to public information and access to how people can go about proceeding under this act. We want the act to be a summary mechanism. I think, as the member has pointed out, this has, in fact, been a codification, in part, of existing common law civil jurisdiction, and in order to make the law more accessible, it is also the task of the government then to ensure that people know how to use this process.
So the legal issues that have been raised by the Young Offenders Act and then informational and administrative infrastructure issues, secondly, have resulted in this period of delay in proclaiming the bill since the time of its passing by the Legislature.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the department have concerns that the Young Offenders Act needs to be changed in order to proceed with the proper application of The Parental Responsibility Act in Manitoba?
Mr. Toews: Lest there be any confusion and my remarks be taken as acceptance of the Young Offenders Act, I want to make it perfectly clear here that our government is not pleased with the legislative framework established by the Young Offenders Act. That is very clear.
The Young Offenders Act is inadequate in many respects, and, yet, because the federal Parliament has made certain legislative pronouncements, we then have to adjust our practice to ensure that we can have an efficient process, bearing in mind the straitjacket, in some sense, the federal legislation puts us in.
But I am not aware of any particular legislative changes that are required in order for us to fully implement the provisions of the act referred to by the member for St. Johns.
Mr. Mackintosh: Have there been any concerns raised by the department to the minister about any breaches of the Young Offenders Act in the event that the parents of a young offender are named in the suit in the Small Claims Court?
Mr. Toews: Well, in fact, that is exactly the concern that we need to address before we put the infrastructure into place, that we comply with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act in implementing our program. There is nothing wrong with, even today, young offenders or young people being sued in the courts and parents taking responsibility for that. There is a process under the common law. The fact that you can have an action against a parent, for example, for the conduct of that child, negligent or criminal, is not an unusual thing.
What we do need to emphasize is that the goal of our Legislature was to put a summary mechanism in place to ensure that the legal process is simplified, so that the ordinary citizen can have this as an effective remedy. In doing that, we have to ensure that we do not violate any prohibitions or provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Mackintosh: For example, is it the concern then that, if a suit in Small Claims was initiated against Mr. Robert Jones for the actions of Bobby Jones, that thereby publicizing the name of the young offender could be a breach of the Young Offenders Act, is that the particular kind of instance?
Mr. Toews: There are no legal concerns in the filing of that suit, even if, coincidentally, the young offender and the child in the suit are the same person. It is a question of protecting the records of the youth court in accordance with the provisions of the Young Offenders Act that we have to deal with. So that is the nature of the administrative concern.
Now, I am advised that it is an administrative concern. It is a concern that can be addressed in the existing legislative framework, and that is what is being worked out now.
* (1710)
Mr. Mackintosh: Have any concerns been raised with the minister from the department or from other places about difficulties surrounding the onus provisions in The Parental Responsibility Act?
Mr. Toews: I have not been made aware of any issues regarding the onus issue. It is certainly not a constitutional issue. I do recall discussing that particular issue, because I recall from my own days as a prosecutor where we used to have to call the mother of the child in order to prove the age of the child, so that the juvenile delinquents court had jurisdiction. So the mother would have to stand up and say, yes, I am Johnny's mother; Johnny is sitting in the court here, and Johnny was born on June 5, 1981, and I know that to be the case, because I was there when it happened.
So in an attempt to avoid that kind of a proof issue, the act made certain assumptions in respect of birth that I think are entirely appropriate and do not create any issues of natural justice as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just so it is clear to me then, is the minister saying that the real problem here is the release of information about the conviction from the court to the parties to the dispute in Small Claims Court or to the plaintive, and the provision of that certificate of guilt that is necessary to begin the process in the Small Claims Court?
Mr. Toews: Yes, the member understands that correctly.
Mr. Mackintosh: The department has made a decision, I understand, not to prosecute certain corporations under the provisions of The Remembrance Day Act as it was in force on the last Remembrance Day. I am wondering if the minister can explain to the committee why there was a decision not to prosecute when the law was in full force and effect on the day that was the day of significance.
Mr. Toews: Yes, that certainly is an interesting question, because it raises all types of questions of legal theory and prosecutorial practice. It has been mentioned in this Chamber before. One of the best decisions regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretions is a case called R. versus Catagas, and I believe that was a prosecution under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which came out of the Brandon area. In that particular case, the accused, and I believe that they were Status or treaty aboriginals, Indians, had been assured by federal officials that they would not be prosecuted for hunting in contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and, indeed, I believe the judge at the county court level was either Lorne Ferg or Pat Ferg, one of them. I believe it was Lorne Ferg, as I recall, because Lorne Ferg was the judge in Brandon. In any event, Lorne Ferg, Judge Ferg decided that because the officials had lulled these people into a false sense of security, it would now not be appropriate to allow them to charge and convict these individuals given that they had acted on the advice of these federal officials.
The matter went to the Court of Appeal and, I think in a very important judgment, what Mr. Justice Freedman stated, speaking for the majority if not unanimous decision of the court, was that the executive cannot disobey the Legislature. That is, the law is the law, and the law must be enforced in accordance with appropriate principles. One of these appropriate principles was the concept that no prosecutor is compelled to prosecute every time a breach of the law has been identified. There is an important element in any prosecutorial system, and that is the element of prosecutorial discretion. I think this is one of the reasons why the British system, in fact, has the Attorney General outside of cabinet. There is an independence to the decision on whether to prosecute or not. In our Canadian system, we do not have the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice outside of cabinet, but I think what has grown to be the practice in Canada over the last 125 years is a very healthy respect for the independence of a prosecutor in making a decision as to law as to whether or not someone should be prosecuted. It is the independence of that prosecutor and the discretion of that prosecutor.
The prosecutor, in looking at a particular case, deals with, I believe, two issues: No. 1, the reasonable likelihood of conviction in any particular case, and secondly, whether it is in the public interest to do so. It is not a political decision. That is a legal decision which involves an element of discretion. I think the member's points earlier talking about the Deputy Attorney General are also relevant to ensure that the people who occupy these positions are, in fact, appropriately qualified and make these decisions on the appropriate principles.
In the Remembrance Day situation, the member for St. Johns will recall that the act was passed one or two days--I could be off on that. November 11 is Remembrance Day, and I believe the act was passed perhaps within a week, three or four days perhaps of November 11, perhaps even less, so there was clearly a very confusing situation. I am advised by the prosecutors that they made a decision that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute under the old act and--or was it the new act came into force after November 11? That is how it worked: within three or four days after November 11.
* (1720)
So it would not be appropriate to prosecute under the old act for offences committed on November 11, given the confusing situation that existed at that time, and that was a decision that was based on this second principle that governs a prosecutor's conduct, not the reasonable likelihood of conviction, although one could perhaps argue whether that could have come into play here as well, but in this particular situation, the prosecutors felt that it would not be in the public interest to commence a prosecution.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that one of the corporations that opened for business on Remembrance Day that year proclaimed publicly that they knew full well what the law was and it was damn the torpedoes. That was my understanding. In other words, to that particular corporation there was no confusion. I wonder if the minister can respond to that understanding of the factual situation.
Mr. Toews: I am not aware of that particular situation, but it is not something that I would be involved in on a personal basis anyway. I do not believe it is appropriate for the Attorney General to make decisions as to whether or not a particular corporation or person should be charged in a case. I think I am entitled to demand an accounting from the Deputy Attorney General of decisions that were made and why they were made. I understand that in this particular case, and I do not know the particular facts of the situation that the member for St. John raises, but I understand that no prosecutions were commenced because it was believed that it would not be in the public interest to do so unless the member can indicate particularly what corporation it was and whether this was even in fact brought to the attention of the police and the Attorney General's department.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the policy of the Prosecutions branch and particular prosecutors to bring questions as to whether a prosecution should proceed or not to the minister, or a final decision making with regard to that second test, which is the public interest? In other words, where there are cases of political sensitivity, the minister does have a role in decision making.
Mr. Toews: I just want to assure the member that in the time that I have been the Attorney General it has not been my practice to be involved in advising whether a person or a corporation should be charged. I do not believe that is my function. I am certainly advised from time to time on important issues where people, corporations have been charged, and that is drawn to my attention. What in fact I can do at that point is question why a certain decision was made, but those types of decisions I have not had occasion to question in a negative way why a particular decision was made during my tenure in office.
I have always found that, while I served the attorneys general of this province, while I was called in to account from time to time about why we would be proceeding on a certain prosecution, it was the Deputy Attorney General who made that type of decision ultimately whether something should be prosecuted or not. I think that appropriately divides the legal function and leaves it with the Deputy Attorney General, and the general broader policy concerns can be raised by the Attorney General to ensure that is taken into account in the Deputy Attorney General's decision.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
I am very cautious, as I believe other attorneys general have been, in being involved with the prosecutions process. The other thing that might be pointed out is that it has been my practice, and I could be corrected by the staff, that generally speaking, the vast multitude of charges are laid by the police, that the police do these charges as the informant without any direction or interference by the Attorney General's department. From time to time the Attorney General's department is consulted in respect of what charges are laid, but I am not aware of situations where the attorney general in any province routinely directs police to lay charges. The charging role is essentially the role of the police. They receive legal advice from the Attorney General's department, and then the Attorney General's department plays an important role, firstly, in prosecuting and, secondly, in effect, staying inappropriate charges. Again, while it is a difficult distinction to make, the political issues must remain separate from the legal issues, and that is a practice that I have endeavoured to follow.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister then assure this committee that he, in no way, took any part or influenced in any way the decision not to prosecute under The Remembrance Day Act in respect of the last Remembrance Day?
Mr. Toews: If you are referring to myself personally, yes, I can assure you that I had no decision in respect of when anyone was prosecuted. I was the Minister of Labour at the time. I cannot recall whether the Minister of Labour, that department, referred the issues to the Attorney General, exactly how that was done, but I believe that there was a decision made by the Attorney General's department either as a result of a referral by the Department of Labour or as a result of a referral by the police to them, and the prosecutor then made the decision as to whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute in this particular situation or not. If you just give me one moment, I can check some of the background of that.
Just to continue with my answer, I just wanted to confirm with my staff the exact sequence. As I understand it, a number of police reports were compiled. That went to a prosecutor. The prosecutor made a decision that it would not be in the public interest to do so. That decision was then reviewed by the director of Prosecutions, Mr. Rob Finlayson. He made that decision, and no charges consequently were laid in that respect.
* (1730)
Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise whether there was any consultation or any influence at all exerted by the former Attorney General with regard to whether this prosecution proceed or not?
Mr. Toews: I am advised that there was none. Mr. Finlayson is here with us now, and he advises that he may have advised the assistant deputy minister, but he is unsure of whether he did or not. The decision, he advises, was his, and there was no influence other than perhaps advising the assistant deputy minister, certainly no indication of any involvement by the deputy minister or the former Attorney General. If any information comes to light in that respect, I will advise the member.
Mr. Mackintosh: There were very serious questions raised in the House surrounding the allegations made apparently by two Manitobans, and I believe there was at least one information laid as to the whereabouts of the bell of Batoche. At that time, the question was raised as to whether there was political interference at all and whether those prosecutions proceed or not. There had been statements made through the media--and they may have been paraphrases, I cannot recall; I will have to go back to the record now--to the effect that the police had referred the matter to the Department of Justice for some direction from Prosecutions, and there was extensive delay, and, ultimately, a decision was made not to proceed with any charge of being in possession of stolen property.
I wonder if the minister can shed any light now as to whether the minister at that time had any influence or any role to play in the decision not to proceed with a laying of charges or of prosecution at that time with respect to the possession of stolen property, being the bell of Batoche.
Mr. Toews: I am advised that throughout any discussions that occurred in respect of possible charges in regard to this bell of Batoche, the deputy indicates that he may have briefed the former Attorney General on one occasion on this matter but received no direction from her in respect of whether or not any charges should be laid. The decision not to lay charges remained within the Prosecutions branch.
Mr. Mackintosh: As I recall, it was the first Hughes report on the Pollock matter that talked, I think, in one of the recommendations about the advisability of police getting direction from the Department of Justice on politically sensitive charges. I am wondering if the minister can comment on how that recommendation is being applied.
Mr. Toews: I think, and hopefully I am not missing the point of the member's question, but the emphasis that I tried to make before was that, as the Attorney General, one must divorce the political issues from the legal issues. One of the best ways of doing that is by leaving the decision to prosecute with the Deputy Attorney General and the staff that he delegates that authority to.
So the director of Prosecutions, for example, when contacted by the police, will make certain recommendations as to whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction or whether it is in the public interest to do so. At this point, I think it is important that these are recommendations. Police are seeking advice and advice is given on the basis of those two criteria.
The department makes itself accessible to the police, so that virtually police can receive opinions from the Crown, if necessary, on a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day basis. That is the administrative practice that has been put into place. Of course, it is rare that that type of opinion is required on a 24-hour basis in order to lay charges. The function of laying charges should, in fact, remain with the police. We have to ensure and trust them with that responsibility. That is the way our system works.
Of course, police who initiate prosecutions in a malicious or other improper way are subject to civil liability, and, again, I would assume there is a sufficient jurisdiction under the Law Enforcement Review Agency for improper police conduct to be curtailed by that mechanism. So there are mechanisms in place to ensure that police act appropriately.
Resources of the Attorney General's department are there to advise them, and, indeed, in situations that could be politically sensitive or involve the conduct of members of the Attorney General's department, or, indeed, police officers, from time to time independent prosecutors are retained, either outside the jurisdiction, from Saskatchewan--we would hire a Saskatchewan Crown attorney to give us a legal opinion--and that divorces the political aspects in a further way from the appropriate legal criteria on which these decisions should be made.
* (1740)
Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the minister's position then that during his tenure he certainly would not in any way attempt to influence or interfere in any decision-making role that the Prosecutions branch has with regard to the prosecution of an individual?
Mr. Toews: Yes, it is certainly my position that I have never recommended that any charges be laid. I have, in fact, been briefed on certain situations. Indeed, when the Deputy Attorney General signed a particular direct indictment, as the deputy is entitled to do, the deputy will then come and advise me that that has, in fact, been done.
I would like to point out that under the Criminal Code, the Attorney General still retains that jurisdiction for signing a direct indictment, but, again, in view of the concern that I have and perhaps past ministers have had with mixing politics and the law, it is best left to the independent law office or the prosecutor to make those kinds of decisions and to sign any direct indictments despite the fact that I may have the legal authority to do so.
It, I think, is an appropriate way of distancing the issue of politics from law enforcement activities, and I think that is very important.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just coming to a conclusion on this one, is it the policy of the government that outside prosecution opinions be sought in particular situations, and what situations would they be? For example, say, even if the First Minister was found to have been driving impaired, for example--I am just throwing that out, but something that is very politically sensitive to the government, what would be the policy in how that matter is dealt with in terms of prosecution decision making?
Mr. Toews: It is a very difficult issue to give any definitive, firm statements. There are certain general practices, but, again, the issue of prosecutorial discretion and control of prosecutions is very, very important. Again, as the member has indicated, in a case where you have this type of political sensitivity, one, of necessity, has to rely on the good judgment of the prosecutor's office to make the determination how a particular case can be handled.
I remember in my own experience as a prosecutor, back when I was either an articling student or in first year, there was a member of the RCMP involved in a particular situation, a highway traffic situation. I was the junior person in the office, and I was assigned the task of determining whether this officer should be charged or not.
Sometimes I think that I was a little naive in the sense that I did not understand the possible working repercussions that occur if a prosecutor in the same office makes a decision to prosecute a police officer that he would have to work with on a day-to-day basis. In that particular situation, I took a look at it, and I said I would prosecute. I made that recommendation to the police. The police charged. I was then assigned the job of prosecuting an officer that I would also work with. In that particular position, the judge acquitted the police officer, but that did create tremendous difficulties even in a small situation like that, and it is understandable. Perhaps, had I had more experience, I would have refused that type of assignment.
I think the department has come a long way since then and recognizes that kind of problem. They do not want to put a prosecutor in a difficult position. Most of all, they want to ensure that the interests of the public are met in any decision related to prosecutions. You cannot have a prosecutor saying boy, this is going to create difficulties for me and my job, therefore, I am going to choose not to prosecute. So there has to be a level of objectivity brought into these types of situations.
Depending upon the degree of sensitivity, a senior prosecutor makes these kinds of decisions. So, for example, if a police officer is accused of some kind of crime or even a regulatory offence, generally speaking, it would not be a Crown attorney from Winnipeg who would deal with it, if it was a Winnipeg police officer under consideration. That offence would probably be sent out to a Crown attorney in Brandon or Thompson, or indeed, if it is more serious or more significant, the recommendation would come from an outside lawyer hired by the Attorney General's department to make that recommendation. That is done from time to time. Or a Crown attorney could make a recommendation, and then that would be reviewed by another outside lawyer in the province.
So depending on the nature of the advice, or the charge, it is difficult to put a fine point on it, but one could have a Crown attorney from outside of the area that the police officer is from, or a person in the private sector, to provide that advice, or, indeed someone outside of the province, which is done.
I am just recalling the situation in Yellowknife. Now, I know that there was a Crown attorney hired from Alberta to prosecute an important murder case in Yellowknife, because of the sensitivity of that particular situation. But I do not believe that you can make any hard and fast rules, but you, in fact, have to rely on these general principles and rely on the essential professional conduct of the Crown attorneys.
* (1750)
Now, I have addressed mainly the area of police officers. The situation that occurs if in fact there is a cabinet minister, let us say, involved, as the example that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has raised, Mr. Chair, obviously, that creates a much more sensitive issue. Again, I could hardly see the Attorney General advising the prosecutorial staff directly or indirectly as to what should be done. That has to be a prosecutorial decision even to the point where the prosecutor then has to decide, do I go out of the office? That is, outside of the Attorney General's department. Do I go out into the private sector? Do I go out into another province? Even that kind of decision essentially has to be left with that prosecutor to ensure that that political sensitivity is respected and that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute; but a very difficult situation.
I think, for that reason, the British Parliament has always kept the Attorney General as an independent law officer outside of cabinet to further enhance that independence and that objectivity; even in that situation, very, very difficult. Our legal system has not evolved in that particular way, but I believe that we have appropriate people in place to ensure that the public interest is met in determining whether or not prosecutions are brought in any particular case.
Now, I have answered this question in a factual vacuum, and I stand to be corrected in any particular case that the member may want to bring to my attention, and I can explain the process or why something was done or ask my officials because they are the ones with the knowledge in those particular situations of why someone was or was not prosecuted or who was consulted and why someone else was not consulted.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister can also then explain what the process is in the police obtaining a Crown opinion with regard to whether particular material is obscene, and there are matters in the media right now, and whether that opinion enables simply a charging or whether it also enables a seizure of materials and whether in that instance there would normally be a reference or whether the director of Prosecutions would be advised that such an opinion was being sought.
Mr. Toews: Just in respect of that particular issue, the area of pornography, whether it is a film or it is a book, is a very, very difficult one. I argued the case of Butler in the Supreme Court of Canada, which was a case coming out of Manitoba, went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the whole issue of whether the tests under the Criminal Code were constitutional or a violation of Section, was it 2(b), freedom of expression, under the Charter, and the court in that Butler decision came out with certain principles that act as a guide.
Now, it is very important to remember that the issue of charging and the issue of seizures are essentially police functions. While a Crown attorney might make a decision or provide an opinion, to better put it, as to whether or not something is obscene, the decision, then, to charge still remains a police function. Similarly, the decision to seize, whether it is in furtherance of obtaining evidence for the purposes of proving that criminal offence, still remains a police decision.
So that is not a decision that I see Crowns making. I am not familiar with Crowns making that particular decision. They can make recommendations, they can provide opinions, but, ultimately, under our system it is the police who then decide whether or not they will lay that charge, and it is good practice for the police to consult with the Crown attorneys because many of the Crown attorneys have an expertise in providing these types of opinions. They are the ones who read the law in a detailed fashion, especially in an area as complex as pornography.
So that, generally speaking, is where I should leave this answer today.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being close to six o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): Is it the will of the House that I not see the clock for just another minute or two? Agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the change that was made to the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the one that was made this afternoon, I move that this be rescinded. That was the one that was the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). That was for May 20, 1997, at 3 p.m., that it be rescinded.
Now, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). This is for May 21, 1997, at 3 p.m.
I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being after 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. (Thursday). Thank you and good night.