Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. Did the honourable minister have some information to bring forward?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Last date a question was asked in respect of the Portage la Prairie regional office and circuits, and I understand that the Portage la Prairie office has five circuit points. They are: Amaranth, Carman, Morden, Stonewall and Teulon. The Stonewall and Teulon circuits are recent additions to that office, the Portage office, and the circuit points of Berens, Bloodvein, Garden Hill and St. Theresa Point have been removed from the Portage office and are being handled out of Winnipeg.

As to the issue of the Berens, Bloodvein circuit, there are available trial dates in the months of November and December, and no other issues related to the circuit have been noted by the Crown attorney. The Garden Hill and St. Theresa Point circuits do not presently have a backlog. Garden Hill has dates for trial available in October and December of '99.

* (1450)

So I trust that that is the information in that respect. I am not aware, again, of any cases that would have been dismissed as a result of any changes. I am advised by the assistant deputy minister that he is not aware of any such difficulty either.

In respect of prosecution positions, just to reiterate and hopefully to clarify any statements that were made yesterday, as noted, the Treasury Board or the approval of government included authority to hire five support staff and five legal counsels. Also, two term positions were filled in respect of a specific prosecution. Those are two additional term positions. The five legal counsel positions are filled, the ones that I referred to earlier, one of them being a bilingual position. The targeted offender unit positions, as indicated last date, will be filled in November of 1999, and there will be four additional Crown attorneys added through this particular process. I think that is all the information I have available now to share with the member for St. Johns.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Just as a further to that information, the minister said that some prosecutors were being directed to a targeted prosecution unit, being the targeted offender unit. I am just wondering if the minister can describe what that unit is to do.

Mr. Toews: This unit relates to a recent announcement, an initiative of this government, in which 100 targeted offenders will be monitored on a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day basis. These, it is important to note, deal with people who are post-conviction, and what we have done in this particular situation is built on the success of the ISSP program in our youth courts in working with probation, the support and supervision that is granted to youth leaving the custody of the province and are then back in the community. It was felt that, as a result of certain individuals receiving conditional sentences or suspended sentences or even those who are on what are known as Section 810 peace bonds, additional resources should be targeted over and above the regular resources provided in these situations, and so this will in fact involve the four additional Crown attorneys working with members of the probation staff.

In fact, this unit, which is expected to be functional by later on this year then, November, December of 1999, will involve the establishment of approximately 11 fulltime employees within the Corrections division to staff the unit with a director, with victims' services workers, and the victims' services worker would be 1.2 fulltime employees or fulltime positions, 1.2 the total, and administrative support of 1.2 and probation officers of 7.7. In conjunction with this, there was the establishment of 6.9 incremental regular FTs within the Prosecutions branch to staff the unit with Crown prosecutors, and that in fact is 4.6 FTs and administrative support of 2.3. So that is the context where these four or so Crown attorneys positions would in fact come from.

Mr. Mackintosh: What will be the duties of these Crown prosecutors? Is it only to prosecute breaches of court orders, or is it to also prosecute primary offences as well?

Mr. Toews: The duties of these prosecutors will certainly be to prosecute breaches of any sentence that these people will be presently serving, conditional sentences or terms of probation if they are on a probation order as a part of a suspended sentence or otherwise, and of course the subsection 810 peace bonds and any breach of that. However, they will also have responsibility for dealing with primary offences, and the focus will be gang-related offences.

So we see them working to target these 100 individuals who will be identified through a departmental process, I assume in conjunction with police input, and this very high standard and very rigorous standard of surveillance will result in those who are in fact breaching the law coming to the notice of the authorities, so that these prosecutions–not only the breach then can be prosecuted, but primary gang-related activities will in fact be prosecuted.

* (1500)

I think that it is also important that, when we talk about these 100 individuals, this would not be a static group. You do not simply take a hundred, and as they either move off or finish with their conditional sentence or end their probation or end their peace bond–but if, for example, there is a breach, and a person is put into custody, whether to serve the remainder of the conditional sentence or indeed to be resentenced as a part of the suspended sentence process, there will then be new people coming into this group of 100. It is ongoing, so you gain if it is fairly successful–I think my speaker is off, Mr. Chair. Oh, it is back on. Maybe just in order to ensure that I have not missed anything, this will not be a static unit but as people move out of this targeted group–or I should say, it should not be a static group. As they move out of this group because of either the expiration of their sentence or some other determination that Justice officials may make or indeed they are sentenced to periods of incarceration as a result of either new primary charges or breaches, new individuals will be brought in after due consideration and targeted in a similar fashion.

Mr. Mackintosh: We are very pleased the minister finally got around to reading our Gang Action Plan.

Last time we were dealing with issues under Finance and Administrative Services, talking about the collection of fines. A follow-up question I have there is: can the minister tell the committee the amount of outstanding traffic fines, first of all, and second of all, the total amount of fines outstanding for all categories?

Mr. Toews: As indicated last date, I was very disappointed in the amendments to the Criminal Code made in 1996, which in effect diminished our ability to collect fines under the Criminal Code. In addition, as a result of various constitutional concerns, our ability to sentence in default has certainly been diminished for Highway Traffic Act offences. Coupled with the fact that the Criminal Code of Canada, due to the 1996 amendments, has in fact made it extremely difficult for victims of crime to enforce judgments, judgments that used to be enforced by the courts as a part of their regular criminal court sentencing process, we have attempted to create a number of alternative mechanisms to ensure that fines are in fact collected and restitution orders are enforced on behalf of victims.

The first point I want to make in that respect is I met very recently with the federal Minister of Justice and explained to her the difficulty that victims have in respect of this particular issue, that although the courts are helpful to a victim by assisting that victim with a particular judgment, obtaining the judgment, the problem is that the way the Criminal Code now has been amended, the victim essentially is required then to enforce the judgment like any other civil judgment. I tried to impress upon the federal Minister of Justice that these types of judgments are very difficult. They do not arise out of any breach of a consensual contract or even like a motor vehicle tort where two citizens have a dispute over a legal issue and the civil court renders a judgment. In those situations, although there are often difficulties as well in collecting those orders, we have now the added difficulty of victims, in fact, being required essentially to attempt to enforce in a civil way judgments against convicted criminals. As indicated earlier, these used to be enforced by the court.

My concern with the strategy that the federal government adopted in its amendments to the Criminal Code is that by simply turning these judgments over to the victims for enforcement and also by not providing for the alternative of jail for the collection of fines, we are undermining the authority of the courts. We, in fact, I think cause the public to lose faith in the administration of justice. So I urged the federal government to reconsider its 1996 position.

In the meantime, there are a number of steps that we have taken, and some of those are before the Legislature today. One such case, of course, is the issue of prisoners in our provincial jails who obtain a judgment against the government. Those judgments then will be held by the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance will be able to hold those judgments in trust. Members of my staff will then take appropriate inquiries to determine what, if any, victims are out there who could benefit from the–

Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister specifically to tell me the amount of outstanding traffic fines and fines generally, a very specific-type question. The minister now is talking about legislation before the House regarding victims and restitution.

I ask that he be called to order, and that the rule of relevancy be invoked.

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

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order. I think it is very relevant how our government is, in fact, addressing the issue of outstanding fines. This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed, and in the context of what is happening, I think I am being very careful.

The rules of this House indicate that I have 30 minutes to demonstrate my relevancy, and I am moving in that direction. If relevancy were the only point and that it had to be demonstrated immediately, Mr. Chair, how could I explain my position and at the same time have 30 minutes that I am entitled to make my point? I am entitled to make my point in those 30 minutes. I can assure you that I will get directly to the point, but I am laying what I consider very important information for the benefit of not only the member for St. Johns but indeed for the public.

* (1510)

Mr. Chairperson: I have already sought advice from both members on the point of order. If you could just give me a minute to look a couple of things up. You always have the option of challenging my decision; either member does.

Let me refer members to the two rules that are being brought forward–well, there are actually three rules that are being brought forward, I guess. Rule 72 is: "Except as provided in sub-rule (2), speeches in Committee of Supply, including those of the Minister, shall be restricted to 30 minutes." But Rule 70.(2) clearly states: "Speeches in a Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion."

So I would rule that the honourable member does have a point of order and ask the minister to keep his comments, even if they are within the 30 minutes, which is not necessary in all cases, if they are within the 30 minutes, to keep them relevant to the question being put.

Mr. Toews: On a matter of clarification, I am not quite sure what clause we are on. I thought we were dealing with the entire book. I did not realize that there was any particular clause that we are on, and if we are not on any particular clause, the issue of relevancy then deals with the entire book.

Mr. Chairperson: We are on Resolution 4.1 on page 107, which, I believe, is Executive Support, which gives the honourable member and the minister leeway to ask–well, it gives the member leeway to ask questions basically throughout the department, but the answers to those questions should still remain relevant to the question being put. [interjection] When did we move?

An Honourable Member: We passed Executive Support.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, I am sorry. Those other ones were passed in a separate committee, I guess. Just let me catch up. That is not what my sheet said. No, it did say that.

4.1.(d) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $837,300. So the question should be relevant to that line.

Mr. Toews: The question is not relevant to that line.

Mr. Chairperson: Then the question itself would be out of order, and if you bring that to my attention, that is the way we will deal with it.

Mr. Toews: Then I would ask you to make a ruling that the question is out of order.

Mr. Chairperson: It will not be necessary for me to make a ruling that is out of order. The honourable minister can just answer that that is not the relevant location to be asking that question.

Mr. Toews: Well, as indicated, the question that has been asked on that particular line is not relevant to the item under discussion, and that is why, Mr. Chair, I was being broad in my answer, because if in fact we are talking about Financial and Administrative Services, that is exactly what I was addressing in respect to some of the administrative services that the department is providing.

So I am a little confused here about where the member is going. Either restrict it very specifically and allow me to answer in that context or simply answer the question on the whole book and give me the 30 minutes and I will get to the point.

Mr. Mackintosh: This is ridiculous. The minister undertakes to answer a question and then goes on–presumably he said he was going to go for 30 minutes. If this is not the place to ask the question, then he can respond by saying there is a more appropriate line in the Estimates. I am prepared to pass this.

Mr. Toews: If we are moving on Financial and Administrative Services, then I will continue my question because certainly my answer is relevant, and I will deal with the question that has been put in the context of that. If not, then he has not asked the relevant question, and I cannot answer anything further.

Mr. Mackintosh: This is just silly. I asked the question of the amount of unpaid fines. That was all I asked. If the minister does not know the answer, he can say he does not know. If he does not want to deal with it under this line, he can advise the committee. But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot avoid the question and at the same time just go on and make a speech about restitution. So I am prepared to pass this item if the minister insists that this is not the place to ask the question.

I think Manitobans are entitled to know the outstanding fines–a simple question. The minister can answer. He has all the staff here to do that. I am prepared to pass this and then move along. We will ask that question then on some other line, and the minister can tell us what line it is that he thinks it is more relevant to.

Mr. Toews: The member is asking me to answer this question in a specific way. There is not a requirement that I answer it in a specific way provided that I am relevant to the matter being raised.

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

Item 4.1. Financial and Administrative Services (d) Financial and Administrative Services (2) Other Expenditures $247,700–pass.

Item 4.1. (e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $686,400.

Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister a question about the unpaid traffic fines and other fines which Manitobans are entitled to know, and if it does not fit under 1.(d), he can tell the committee what item it fits under. Otherwise, just answer the question. He knows the answer if his staff is sitting there.

Mr. Toews: Yes, the matter would, I think, be more relevant under 5.(a) Court Services. My court staff is not here, but I will try to answer that question in the context of that line when that line comes up. I do not know whether we have passed all the lines up to that and–

Mr. Chairperson: We are not at 5.(a) at this time. At this time we are still in resolution 4.1. We are now on (e) Human Resources. We have to go through 2, 3, and 4 before we get to that resolution.

Mr. Mackintosh: Under 1.(e), can the minister tell us what is the measurement that is being used and the count of aboriginal persons that are employed in the Department of Justice?

Mr. Toews: My staff does not have that information, but I can certainly table that for the member as soon as I get that, because I know that the department regularly reports in that respect. When I was the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission I think that is where all these reports go. They are collected centrally, and that would give a good indication. Perhaps it has come up in the context of the Civil Service Commission already, but I am certainly willing to produce that information for the member's information.

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

Item 4.1.(e) Human Resource Services (2) Other Expenditures $170,500–pass;

4.1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $684,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $262,100–pass.

4.2. Criminal Justice (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $606,100–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $160,900–pass.

4.2.(b) Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,227,700.

Mr. Mackintosh: How many prosecutors will be deployed to the gang trial that is coming up?

* (1520)

Mr. Toews: As the member is aware, Mr. Chair, this is a joint prosecution that is being undertaken by both the federal government and the provincial government. There will be resources from both levels of government. I cannot comment with any certainty on the level of the federal commitment. I know that there are discussions that are ongoing, and indeed this was a matter that was raised with the federal Justice minister in my recent meeting with her in Ottawa.

I am advised that there will be three fulltime criminal Crown attorneys having conduct of this case from the provincial Department of Justice. In addition, presently there is one fulltime constitutional lawyer working on this case, and that lawyer will be working on the case until essentially the main constitutional arguments have been completed.

So at the present time we are committing four Crown attorneys. That, though, may change given demands placed upon them, either a lessening of demands or an increase in demands. Of course, that will also be influenced by the amount of support that the federal government commits to this very complex trial.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will these three positions be filled by prosecutors who are currently on staff, or is it the intention of the branch to hire specifically for this?

Mr. Toews: I understand that the three fulltime Crowns dedicated to this case are in fact presently employed by the provincial Department of Justice. I know that certainly the lead prosecutor is a very, very experienced prosecutor, and I believe that the fulltime constitutional lawyer, as well another very experienced lawyer, again is working I understand on a fulltime basis. When I say that, there may be occasion from time to time that each of these lawyers may have a separate subsidiary duty assigned to them, but the intention is that, by and large, their efforts will be focused on this particular trial. So that is all I can say now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the department in negotiations with the Association of Crown Attorneys currently with regard to any matter of employment, whether it is salaries or staffing or other resources?

Mr. Toews: I am aware of discussions that are going on between departmental officials and the members of the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys. I think it is important to note that members of my department, whether it is the assistant deputy minister or the deputy minister or other senior people outside of the bargaining unit, do not negotiate with the association. That is something that is left to the Civil Service Commission. But there are ongoing discussions related to a number of issues, including resources, and I assume that those discussions are continuing.

I note, for the member's information, that there was recently an agreement to allow fulltime Crown attorneys to make themselves available for bail proceedings outside of regular working hours, if I can use that term. I know that the hours of Crown attorneys are somewhat flexible, given the professional nature of their duties, and I think that is also reflected in the collective agreement. But, prior to this agreement, what was occurring was there were a number of private lawyers that had been contracted to carry out these, I will not say outside duties, but these particular duties, and we have agreed with the Crown attorneys that Crown attorneys who wish to volunteer for that particular service will be compensated at the same rate that these outside lawyers were being paid to carry on those activities.

As I recall, that has been implemented in the last month or so. So those kinds of discussions and decisions are regularly held between members of my department and the Crown attorneys association. It appears that the resolution of this bail issue and the attendance of Crown attorneys at that was something that was seen as amenable to the Crown attorneys. I would stress, however, that I do not believe that any Crown attorneys are forced to participate in that, but if they volunteer to participate in that, they are compensated at a specific rate, and I think that is $400 a week.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the department done any calculation of the total cost to just his department, including prosecutions and sheriff's officers, legal aid of the upcoming gang trial?

* (1530)

Mr. Toews: Madam Chair, the department advises that there are obviously some incremental costs that will occur as a result of this particular trial, and those incremental costs are substantive in terms of what could occur over a period of time. Now they will be tracking those costs as the trial progresses, but as to an overall figure of what the cost is that would be very difficult to estimate with accuracy. I know that we have approached the federal Justice minister to consider a contribution in some way to the cost that the Province of Manitoba will be put to as a result of this trial. Perhaps all I can indicate at this time is that I can get the member some figures indicating incremental resources that, in some way, are related, perhaps not exclusively to this trial but driven, in part, by this trial and the resources that will be needed by the department to meet those requests and break that down for the member to the extent that that is possible.

Mr. Mackintosh: I look forward to that information.

Can the minister tell the committee how many johns have been convicted since April of '95?

Mr. Toews: The statistics that we would have available to us are the number of johns, and by the term "john" I assume that the member is referring to males who have been convicted of communication for the purposes of prostitution in a public place. The only way we could identify those numbers is not through the number who have been convicted but through the ones who have gone, in fact, through what we call the john school. We can tell the member how many have gone through that program, but it should also be pointed out in that respect that those individuals were not convicted either. It was an alternative measures program that this government set up. So, short of some records that maybe the police would keep in terms of the numbers of people on that list, and the police tracking who were johns, that is a male customer, and who were prostitutes, and by and large female in that context, who have been convicted of the same offence. But I do not think the stats, certainly not the stats we keep, would indicate that. Maybe the police statistics could generate that kind of a distinction between males convicted of communication for the purposes of prostitution and female prostitutes, or even male prostitutes convicted.

I know, again, that there have been three schools for what they call–they do not call it jane school–weekend diversion or something like that, which is being run by the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army should be able to give the member some idea of the numbers that have gone through that.

I know that the johns who attend john school are required to pay a certain amount of money for the privilege of attending the john school. I do not know whether our government keeps any record of that, or if the Department of Justice keeps any records of that, but I will see what kinds of statistics are available in that context.

Mr. Mackintosh: More specifically, does the department keep track, and, if so, can it tell me how many male johns have been convicted of communicating for the purposes of prostitution in regard to a prostitute who is underage, or what is known as a child or teenage prostitute?

Mr. Toews: I am not aware of that figure. I think the only way that the member could maybe find that out is through Estimates in Family Services. I understand that those individuals go onto the Child Abuse Registry, and the number of people convicted in that context would be on the Child Abuse Registry, so the numbers would not be by my department but in fact in the Department of Family Services. We do not keep those records.

Mr. Mackintosh: If a john goes to john school, is my understanding correct that that individual, because it is an alternative measure, will not attract a criminal record?

Mr. Toews: This particular program, which was, I think, welcomed by police and many community organizations, was seen as an important step in not simply prosecuting johns but ensuring that they learn what the consequences of their actions are to a particular community.

The Salvation Army, which essentially runs this program on behalf of the various authorities, takes in individuals who are qualified under the program. As I understand it, that is essentially a police decision. I know that our department has input into that as well. So in cases where diversion is offered prior to charge–I want to be careful here–if the person meets all of the requirements of the particular program and pays the fee, and I believe the fee is approximately $400, then upon successful completion, the alternative diversion results in no charge being laid. If a charge has already been authorized and the authorities deem it appropriate that the person is qualified to benefit from the diversion program, the person is sent to the john school, again paying the requisite amount of money, completing the course successfully. Upon successful completion, the charge is stayed against that individual. So the legal consequences in that respect are that a criminal conviction is avoided. The $400 is in fact utilized for the running of the program, as well as running of the diversion camp for the diversion camp which was formerly known as the jane school. So that money from the johns is then sent over to run that particular program.

* (1540)

I note that, with the success, I am told, and this is anecdotal, but with the success of the law that came into force regarding the seizure of motor vehicles for prostitution-related activities, there has been a decline in the number of people arrested for prostitution-related activities, and that has also resulted in a decline in the revenues available for the running of the diversion camp. That was on the street. So that was noted to me when I was present at the recent announcement of our government in respect of trying to move street workers or prostitutes, whatever the appropriate name now is, I do not always know what the appropriate name is, but what New Directions and the consultants, including the Salvation Army, have indicated is that we want to take some of these street workers and offer them healthy alternatives, healthy choices, and that program, I am pleased to say, was supported by our government in the amount of approximately $146,000.

So I hope that gives the member some answer in respect of the question.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Driedger): Item 4.2. Criminal Justice (b) Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,227,700–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,503,000–pass; (3) Witness Programs $582,000.

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not want him to list all the grants if there are great numbers of them there, but perhaps if he can list by classification the grants that are there under–it is not the Witness Programs itself, but what are the grants that are being referred to in that line?

Mr. Toews: I am advised the only grant that comes out of 2.(b)(3) is a grant to the Citizenship Council of Winnipeg language bank, which is a sustaining grant to assist in the provision of interpreter services to the courts. So that is the only grant in respect of that line.

Mr. Mackintosh: What, then, are the Witness Programs? Are they witness protection programs that are being referred to there, or are they witness support programs?

Mr. Toews: It would include various types of witness fees, including some of the fees that the member has mentioned, and also includes, for example, expert witnesses that are attained by the Crown in particular cases.

The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Driedger): 4.2. Criminal Justice (b) Prosecutions (3) Witness Programs $582,000–pass.

4.2.(c) Provincial Policing $55,893,600.

Mr. Mackintosh: When will the joint forces unit that the minister has announced funding for become operational?

Mr. Toews: Just to give the member some context in respect of this particular issue, the province responded to a specific request of the Criminal Intelligence Service of Manitoba, which is made up of the various police forces, including Brandon city police, Winnipeg City Police and the RCMP, for a joint forces unit. The province in fact agreed in principle with that proposal, and as a result I, as minister, signed a memorandum of understanding with the RCMP who, in fact, act as our provincial police force. I recognized, of course, that the proposal was coming jointly from all of the police forces, but this in fact gave the RCMP the go-ahead to proceed in that direction.

The plan that was brought forward by CISM, Criminal Intelligence Service of Manitoba, requested certain resources, including certain positions, and the government in fact approved those particular resources, and that announcement was made over the last couple of weeks, I think within the last two weeks or so.

So this is a unit that is, of course, being run by the police forces in a joint way. So those discussions are ongoing. The resources have been authorized; the positions have been authorized as far as the RCMP are concerned in terms of us authorizing the RCMP to do that. I think now it is an issue of the Winnipeg city police being able to marshal their resources and their plan, and we are prepared. We are simply facilitating this Joint Forces Intelligence Unit. There is essentially nothing left for the province to do other than to fund this and to ensure that the creation of the Joint Forces Intelligence Unit does not impact inappropriately or adversely on other policing agreements that we may have in the province. My officials, in fact, are discussing those types of issues with the various police forces.

* (1550)

Mr. Mackintosh: So is the minister saying that the funding is available from the department now, when it is requested, for expenditure by the police forces involved?

Mr. Toews: I guess simply put, because I do not want to get into all the details of the discussions here, but when the personnel are in place, the funding will be there. It is not an issue of the province standing in the way here or requiring anything extraneous to this matter. As far as the province is concerned, when the police forces are in a position to proceed we will be able to simply provide those resources to them in terms of monetary resources. They still have to come up with the appropriate personnel to staff the unit. These are not being staffed by provincial personnel. In that context also, I think it needs to be emphasized that the governance issue is something that is being looked at to ensure that this unit is being appropriately run and staffed and managed, so those types of governance issues are being discussed.

I might note that we are also aware of some difficulties in other jurisdictions that have set up these joint forces intelligence units; I refer specifically to British Columbia. It is one jurisdiction that I know, and the reason I know is because it has been quite broadly stated in newspaper reports the difficulties that they have had in working that particular unit. It is certainly my hope that we can avoid that kind of an issue, that kind of difficulty, and that the police in setting up the governance of this in fact take into account some of the difficulties that other jurisdictions may have encountered.

I note that while all police forces are important to us as government, we do not directly control the police forces. In fact, we do not control the Winnipeg City Police force in any substantive way, other than through certain provincial bodies that have been created to regulate police conduct; for example, the Law Enforcement Review Agency. We have a more direct accounting relationship with the RCMP because, in fact, they are our provincial police force. So that is one of the reasons why I felt it was important to sign that memorandum of understanding with the RCMP directly, even though the proposal for this unit came from the Criminal Intelligence Service of Manitoba, which includes not only the RCMP but also includes the various municipal police forces.

I think that it is very important that we continue to consult on this matter. I do not think it is a secret that this government has been very supportive of policing efforts in the city of Winnipeg. So even though we do not have direct responsibility over policing in the city of Winnipeg, because of the various policing agreements that we have had with the police, we have a very significant interest in ensuring that these agreements are observed at least in their spirit. I know I have spoken to the chief and the mayor about the whole issue of the City of Winnipeg Police, and I do not want to get involved in running it. They have a tremendous challenge in running a very large and professional department.

The issues, though, that we from the province see–and maybe it would be helpful for the member because all of these factors come into play in the setting up of this Joint Forces Intelligence Unit–relate first of all to the 1995 policing agreement and the level of commitment that the City of Winnipeg undertook at that time to maintain a force of 1,180 officers. Also, complicating this issue is the specific auto theft unit that MPI funds and which was certainly supported by this government whereby MPI, I believe, gives one-half a million dollars to the City of Winnipeg to set up or to enhance their auto theft unit. That not only goes to pay for officers salaries but certain equipment.

The other point that needs to be made here is that the City of Winnipeg from time to time has contracted out positions to other authorities. The one specific authority that I can think of is the Winnipeg Airports Authority where I believe there are 16 officers that have been contracted out. So then, in terms of ensuring that the Joint Forces Intelligence Unit is set up and at the same time making those resources available for the Joint Forces Intelligence Unit, we have to be certain that the spirit of these other agreements is respected and that the taxpayer of the province of Manitoba is in fact getting what he or she is paying for as we support the police in their very, very important work.

I think also the complicating issue that also needs to be borne in mind, which our departmental staff are certainly aware of, is the issue of auxiliary police. As the member knows, there has been an announcement and resources made available to dramatically increase the number of auxiliary police. Presently there are about 140 auxiliary police attached to the RCMP, and I know that we have made now more available to the RCMP and initiating this from municipal police forces including the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Chairperson: I am interrupting the proceedings. The hour being four o'clock, as previously agreed in the House, this committee will now move to Finance.

* (1600)