JUSTICE

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time?

We are on Resolution 4.2 (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

(Mr. David Newman, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chair, the committee has begun, so I would just like to take a moment to introduce a member of the staff to the Chamber, Mr. Les Kee, Director of Special Prosecutions, who is joining us for this session.

* (1500)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): During Question Period again today we pursued the issue of the inquest into the Health Sciences Centre infant deaths and the role of the government. The minister apparently is taking the position, based on an appellate court decision, that independent counsel cannot be retained to conduct the inquest. Is that a fair summary of the minister's position?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the position is one in which the court has said really what is the purpose, because whoever is retained, whether it is our Crown attorneys or whether it is an outside counsel, they all function under the direction of the Attorney General.

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that decision involved a prosecution and whether the Attorney General could ever relinquish her role as the person responsible for prosecutions under our system of government and in our judicial system.

I wonder if the minister has an opinion as to whether that decision is applicable to the issue of inquests, which, under The Fatality Inquiries Act, appear to put the Attorney General in quite a different role, both under the legislation and historically.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I think that is precisely what the judgment is speaking about. The judgment speaks about the different role that the Attorney General plays, the number of different roles that the Attorney General plays. For example, the Attorney General is an employer. The Attorney General has a role in the House. The Attorney General has a role in criminal proceedings and civil proceedings and at an inquest. The Attorney General plays a number of different roles.

Their emphasis is that the Attorney General plays whichever of those roles and must discharge that responsibility according to law. That is done through the Crowns. The Crowns must discharge their responsibility in their independent way.

Mr. Chair, I continue to believe that the Crowns who have been appointed to assist the judge in the fact-finding of this inquest are in fact going to do a job that will serve the interests of the people of Manitoba. The member continues to suggest that they will not. I disagree.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister, I suggest, should be careful in how she is characterizing the conflict of interest. Conflict of interest arises on two dimensions. One is a perception of a conflict of interest, and the other is a real conflict of interest.

However, the concerns raised in Question Period today, particularly regarding the likelihood of a civil suit against the government and given concerns that will likely be the subject of the inquest which revolve around the operations of the Chief Medical Examiner's office, the perception certainly is a heightened one.

I think the minister has just made the best case possible for why an inquest is the inappropriate vehicle to deal with this issue. The appropriate vehicle is an independent inquiry. If the minister feels that she is constrained now the decisions have been made by her government and constrained to an inquest, I suggest that the minister has several routes that she can follow if she wants to ensure public confidence in this inquest, which, I hope, the minister indeed sees as her main objective.

One is to review the legislation and satisfy herself that counsel, nongovernmental counsel, can indeed be contracted with which will act as quasi-independent agents or as independent agents for the inquest; and, No. 2, that the legislation be amended as recommended by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to ensure that nongovernmental counsel has conduct of the inquest.

As well, there are other alternatives, I think, that are available to the government. One is to review the role of the interveners, assuming there will be some at the inquest, and to ensure that there will be the full participation of interveners. That may require some public funding, I do not know. I will have to consider that. So I will leave that with the minister.

I wonder if she has any response to those suggestions.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the member raises the issue of conflict, perception or reality, and I will tell him now, as I have told him each time I have answered the question, I am satisfied that there is neither the reality nor perception of conflict of interest. In fact, he continues to push a point which the Court of Appeal has described as a window dressing for whatever purposes.

Mr. Chairman, my answer is the same. I have confidence in the ability of our Crowns to discharge their work in an independent way in the way in which they have in the past. This is not a new idea that our Crowns would act in an inquest. Secondly, the question of inquest versus inquiry. We are satisfied that the judge has enough power under the existing legislation to look into this matter through an inquest. Past practice of the court has shown that the judge can discharge his duties in this way.

So we are satisfied at this time that our Crown attorneys will do the right job and that the inquest is the way to go.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I regret the minister's view of this.

History repeats itself, and not long ago in the report of the honourable Archie Dewar into the Ticketgate affair, he reviewed the point at which the internal conflicts arose within the minister's department and at which the independence of the prosecutorial role broke down. He made his conclusions and then said the above conclusion is about organizational fault and failure to understand it; it is not a reflection on motives.

Of course, that report then went on--and this was regarding a prosecution, and I recognize the seriousness, a very important distinction here. I am talking, though, about recognizing a conflict of interest when it is staring the government in the face. He then went on to conclude as recommendation 2.(e) that the government establish criteria for and method of selection of a special prosecutor in appropriate cases where internal interests of the Department of the Attorney General conflict or appear to be in conflict.

* (1510)

Then, of course, we had the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, and we had the inquiry into the Helen Betty Osborne death and the murder and the Harper matter.

There the AJI, on page 85, went on in detail to discuss the role of the Crown. The inquiry notes, and I quote: "Inquests, . . . are conducted by Crown attorneys as a matter of convention. However, The Fatality Inquiries Act does not direct Crown attorneys to be involved, nor does it explain fully the role of the Crown attorney." Then they go on to cite section--I believe from memory it is 27.

He went on to explain, then, that Crown attorneys have been assumed to have conduct of inquest. The inquiry then moves towards a recommendation, and it looks at the issue of ensuring independence. The inquiry states, and I quote: "The Act does not anticipate the possibility of a conflict arising between the party conducting the inquest and the one who is the subject of the inquest. No rules about how to challenge the conduct of Crown attorneys are set out. No rules of disclosure exist requiring the Crown attorney to disclose to other parties all the evidence available to the Crown attorney."

The report went on to say: "The government definitely should be in a position to argue its account of events and defend its actions, but in such a situation a completely independent person should conduct the inquest and have access to all relevant files. The government cannot defend its actions and present a `version,' while at the same time purporting to assess independently and present all the available information. The two activities constitute a conflict. At the very least, there is a perception of a conflict.

"Families of deceased persons should not be put in the position of having to challenge and rebut the `official version' when the death involves a public agency. Crown attorneys should not be able to decide unilaterally what is and is not relevant information for an inquest. The approach of the person calling the evidence at the inquest must be that there is no `version.' Therefore, whenever a government agency or department's actions are to be scrutinized at an inquest, counsel conducting the inquest should be independent of government."

Then they went on with the formal recommendation and indeed recommended that The Fatality Inquiries Act be amended to provide that where an inquest involves a government agency, a nongovernment lawyer be retained to conduct the inquest.

Now is the minister rejecting the rationale and the recommendation of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry there?

Mrs. Vodrey: Let me go through the issues that the member has raised. First of all, he raises an issue from the Dewar review. That was a prosecution against judges, defence lawyers, magistrates and others who are involved on a regular basis in the administration of justice. In that case we have followed that advice. We have at times in a situation like that gone to outside counsel.

The member speaks about the AJI. The AJI was an inquiry looking specifically at the justice system and how the justice system related to aboriginal people, particularly in Manitoba. In the AJI there was a preference stated that perhaps we should not use Crown attorneys and perhaps we should in fact use outside counsel even from outside of our province. However, what we are dealing with here and what we have used as our guidance is recent case law in Manitoba from our highest court, the Court of Appeal. In that recent decision, 1994, the Court of Appeal gives the opinion that I have stated in Question Period, and I am happy to state it again for the record. We have been discussing it this afternoon.

I quote: The Attorney General is in a unique position quite unlike that of a member of the private bar. It is no answer beyond the political window dressing to retain outside counsel. Whoever her agents may be, whether her permanent staff or outside special appointments, they must function under the Attorney General's direction.

So we have taken direction from that most recent case of our Court of Appeal, and I believe I have given him an answer to the two other cases that he has brought forward.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am not going to get into a legal argument. I wonder if the minister can provide the cite for that case. Is it the Queen versus Doucet?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I urge the minister, I urge the government, in the interests particularly of the families of the infants involved and of all parents past and future in Manitoba that she ensure public confidence in this inquest and she very carefully review the prerogatives, the abilities of this government to better ensure a perception that there is impartiality, fairness.

Well, Mr. Kee is shaking his head. Perhaps he would like to make some comments through the minister.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member well knows, the minister is the one who speaks on behalf of the department. Whether or not the member is being somewhat overly sensitive to any gestures or movements which are being made on this very, very hot day in Manitoba, I cannot answer for that. The member is obviously extremely sensitive about what has taken place over the course of Estimates. He is now trying to suggest that members of the Department of Justice, by becoming comfortable on this hot day, have some message for him.

Well, the message of this government, the position of this government is the one that I have given to him, the one that I have been putting forward over the past two days. I understand that the member sees this as the government does, as a very important inquest. I am pleased that he sees this in the same light as the government, that this is an important issue, a very emotional issue on behalf of the people who are involved.

I have assured him on several occasions that my main concern is that there is fact-finding within the range of the inquest which is quite broad. We are satisfied that it can be quite broad. We also have confidence in the Crown attorneys and in the associate chief judge who is conducting this, and I think the points have been made over and over.

* (1520)

Mr. Mackintosh: This matter is on all fours with the concerns raised in the AJI report and, in fact, concerns raised by the very judge who will hear the inquest. I do not know what Judge Sinclair thinks of the appointment of two Crown attorneys, but in light of his remarks in the AJI report I suspect that he is uncomfortable.

I think the critical question is the discomfort of those who are most affected by the inquest. I note, although I have not spoken directly to the family, but I saw a quote of a grandmother of one of the deceased infants in the paper who expressed her perception. It was that she thought the inquest would cover things up. If that is the perception that is gaining circulation, then I think the point is proven.

I ask the minister again to reconsider this and not dig in to a position. This inquest will take a lot of work, a lot of effort, and there are hopes being pinned on the impartiality and the thoroughness of this inquest. We do not need any perception that it will be inadequately aggressive. So I ask the minister to again look at this issue. I am confident she will see quite clearly that the case she cites in Doucet is distinguishable.

I have some further questions. The other day or last night we spoke about the Community Advocacy Response Team for Domestic Violence recommendation of the Pedlar report, known as the CART recommendation. Pedlar recommends that CART be created to provide advocacy support and assistance to women and their children immediately after police have responded to a situation of domestic violence. I am wondering what action the minister has taken with regard to that recommendation.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I know we have spoken about this over, I guess, the past year. The member knows that there is an implementation committee for the Domestic Violence Court. The Chief Judge is the chair of that committee. I understand that the group from the Pedlar implementation committee made a presentation to the Domestic Violence Court implementation committee chaired by the Chief Judge, and they did speak about the CART program.

However, I have certainly had no recommendation yet from the implementation committee--that is the one chaired by the Chief Judge--to move in any particular direction in relation to the CART program, or, on the other side, the program that deals with intervention with the offender. As the member knows, there are two models. People who believe that the CART model is the way to go present information on behalf of the CART model, but there are others who believe we should be dealing at the other end with the offender and some do not agree with that either.

So we have a committee. It is not my committee, by the way. It is the committee of the Chief Judge, who is looking at this and from whom, I expect, I will receive some information and some direction, but I have not had it yet. I do not want the member to think that nothing has been done, because, though the Pedlar committee has expressed interest in the CART program, many other things have happened in this province as well. I think that it is important just to go over some of those initiatives.

Really one of the biggest initiatives, one of the most important initiatives, is one that I spoke about last night, and that is the establishing of Canada's first specialized Family Violence Court in Winnipeg. We have a Family Violence Court in Brandon, and we are looking at how we can provide family violence courts in other areas of the province. That is a big step. That is one which, as I said yesterday, has brought people from all across Canada to look at the system that we have in Manitoba. We have developed very aggressive police and prosecutorial and correctional protocols, and they are designed to respond to domestic violence.

We have expanded the victim services, and I think that is a very important issue that we were able to expand those victim services, including Women's Advocacy. We have them operating in Winnipeg, also in Brandon, in Thompson and The Pas. I have also spoken about the fact that we are looking at an overall strategy for victims around this province. So a great deal has been done.

In addition, the other area of concern I remember in Estimates last year was the correctional programming for offenders, because we have to look at somehow dealing with the person who was the offender and how that person is going to return to the community. Is there some way that individual can either gain some insight into their behaviour to stop them doing it or at least change their behaviour even without the insight? So we do have programs within Corrections that are aimed at offenders both in the institutions and outside.

So I would not want the member to think that, because a decision on CART has not yet been forthcoming, a decision one way or the other or because a request, a recommendation one way or the other on CART has not been forthcoming from the implementation committee, nothing has been done or we have been waiting on that alone. That is simply not correct. What is correct is this government's action, which, I can tell you, I present over and over again when I go to not only Ministers of Justice meetings but Ministers responsible for the Status of Women ones, because Ministers responsible for the Status of Women across Canada are looking at how issues of domestic violence are being dealt with in every province, and Manitoba continues to have the model.

Mr. Mackintosh: My question was about CART. Has the minister assured herself that the implementation committee is reviewing the CART model?

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member in my answer, but he might have been busy while I was giving it, there was a very extensive presentation to the implementation committee by, I believe, members of the Pedlar group on the CART program, but we have not received a recommendation from the implementation committee chaired by the Chief Judge. It is my understanding that that committee is looking at which of the intervention models would be the best or is there another intervention model that may be more suitable. The two intervention models, as I have said, are the CART intervention, which is an intervention with the victim right at the charging time, or intervention with the offender in terms of looking at how to change that person's behaviour or give them some insight into what their behaviour means.

* (1530)

Mr. Mackintosh: It is four years now almost since Pedlar made the recommendation, and I am just concerned that the minister might be relinquishing the initiative to this implementation committee, which may or may not currently be reviewing the CART model. I wonder if the minister would be prepared to ask the implementation committee to make a recommendation one way or another on the matter.

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, let me make it clear again that this minister and this government are not relinquishing opportunities to act, and I have just gone through a list of the actions that this government has been doing in the area of domestic violence. The member has looked at one particular initiative, and what I have explained to him is that a committee--not my committee, but I have representatives on that committee--has been reviewing it. I certainly can ask for an update from the people who sit on that committee who are my representatives, but I would remind him that this committee is chaired by the Chief Judge.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister would report to this side as to whether or not the committee is currently reviewing CART or alternative models and whether it is now in a position or when it will be in a position to make a recommendation.

Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member, the presentation occurred. I am not sure, and it is by memory, my memory, if this presentation occurred before Christmas or just after, but it has been fairly recently and the Chief Judge's committee, the implementation committee has to look at it.

I am interested, though, that the member seems to be so--and I cannot tell, is he supportive of the CART model or not? It seems to me that he is supportive of the CART model. I cannot quite tell what he is getting at, but it seems to me he is supportive of that model, which surprises me because the CART model comes from the United States. It was very interesting to listen to members opposite spend a great deal of time being very concerned about anything that came from the United States into Canada, particularly, into Manitoba. Now here we have the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) of the NDP party expressing great interest, wanting the government to find out and get a move on in this CART area, which came from the United States. It is quite a turnaround that we see from the opposition party.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister, I hope she comes back into the Estimates process here. I certainly never put any position on the record. If she heard one, I do not know whom she heard it from. My concern is that I have some concerns about the CART model, quite frankly, and although I do accept the recommendation of Pedlar that a pilot project be established in at least two centres in Manitoba to allow for the evaluation of such a model, I think we better get going on this because nothing is happening.

I am glad to hear the minister clarify that the presentation has been made relatively recently, perhaps after Christmas, so I hope that some recommendation will be coming forward.

I do not know if I even want to bother responding to her thing about ideas from the U.S. It was just gibberish as far as I was concerned.

Now the minister had said that there were two points of view she was aware of: one was intervention for victims, and the other one was intervention for offenders. She said, those seemed to be competing points of view. I am wondering what point of view the minister shares.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, yes, I am very happy to tell him I am aware of both possible types of information. We discussed it last year in the Estimates process. However, we have not had any recommendation yet that has given us information that says which will be the most effective, the most efficient, or perhaps to the interests and the liking of people in Manitoba. We understand that we are working with people; we want to make a difference in terms of working with people. I will be very interested to hear which of those is seen by victims or various groups to be the most effective and the most efficient. We have not had that information back.

The member characterizes them as a somewhat competing points of view. I am not sure that is accurate. However, the focus of them is both different. One focuses on the victim, and one focuses on the offender, to my knowledge. That is why I said those are the two that I have heard the most about, but maybe there is a third. Maybe there is something which will come from the implementation committee that has been working with this. Maybe something will come from people who have been interested in working in this area that will provide us with another model that will be the one that will be the most helpful to Manitobans. So, Mr. Chairman, I have to say to him that I wait for some further information.

Mr. Mackintosh: I certainly do not share the view that they are competing, although I took that from the minister's comments that she was being led to believe they were. In fact, I entirely reject that. There should be services no doubt in intervention both for victims and for offenders if we are going to change behaviour and deal with the needs that are out there.

The other critical series of recommendations in Pedlar, under the umbrella of response to victims, included the recommendation "that ongoing support groups and counselling services be made available for abused women and their children" and that such supports go beyond the time that victim must spend in the justice system.

I am wondering if the minister can report now on that unfulfilled recommendation and what the status is of ongoing support services.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am concerned about the member's phrasing of his question of an unfulfilled something he said, an unfilled action, or I am not sure what word he used. He is quite wrong. It amazes me sometimes how he has missed the point of several initiatives which have already been spoken about in terms of support to women who have been victims. He is well aware of our Women's Advocacy Program which is a support to women.

When he speaks about counselling, I believe he is aware that our Criminal Injuries Compensation will now see for counselling those people who have been victims of abuse, including sexual abuse. I believe that we spoke about that last year. I think that coverage is very important, and people are able to access that.

I have spoken about an overall victims strategy, which we are currently developing. I am not sure if the member knew about those two or three initiatives which are currently ongoing within the Department of Justice.

* (1540)

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee what program is currently in place that is provided by the government, either directly or indirectly through funding, so that there is ongoing counselling for victims of abuse?

Mrs. Vodrey: In my last answer I spoke about funding which is available from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which provides funding to victims who wish to seek counselling from a psychologist. Those people who wish to seek counselling because they have been victims in such things as sexual abuse or domestic assault, that is available. The member knows when somebody seeks the support of a psychiatrist, that is covered under medicare, but we have looked at how then to provide support to individuals who wish to seek counselling from someone other than a psychiatrist or psychologist is an example.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister could provide, before the conclusion of the Estimates, a list of the counselling programs which the government provides directly or indirectly through funding for survivors of domestic violence, as well as the children who are either victims directly or are victims by exposure to domestic violence. I just want to make it clear--if the minister could provide a listing of those programs.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am sure the member knows, as I have talked about one of the counselling programs where funding is provided through the Department of Justice and the Women's Advocacy Program, funding provided through the Department of Justice, but there are also programs which, I believe, are offered in the area of Health and also through Family Services and perhaps also through Education.

It will require an opportunity to survey and the member sort of looks about Education, but though this is perhaps an indirect through funding to the public school system, there is funding to the Child Guidance Clinic. The people that work at the Child Guidance Clinic provide that direct counselling to children, whether they are victims themselves or within a family where this event has occurred.

I am not able to promise that I can provide that by the end of this Estimates; however, I will survey the departments and provide him with the information. I think it is really an important list of information.

I would also remind him and, for the record, just speak very briefly about the children's secretariat, Child and Youth Secretariat, which actually is being managed under my colleague the Minister of Family Services' (Mrs. Mitchelson) department, but which is funded and participated in by the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Family Services.

Through the Child and Youth Secretariat, we are making every attempt to put the child first, that child's needs first and whether the child's needs are best serviced through school, and then we will try and get the resources into the school. We need to look at how we are able to break down some of the barriers between departments to make sure the service is received. So that would be another area that I would like to survey to see what is available currently through our Child and Youth Secretariat or what may be planned.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just to restrict, then, the scope of the undertaking, if the minister could provide a list of the programs funded directly or indirectly by the Department of Justice and if she could provide information that is funded through the Youth Secretariat?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am certainly able to provide what comes through Justice and through my representative in the Child and Youth Secretariat. I will be happy to provide information from the Child and Youth Secretariat which was developed and announced, as the member knows, in early March of this year, and which is continuing to develop its mandate to serve children and to serve children first and in a very holistic way.

The other areas, I presume then he is satisfied that he has been able to identify through Estimates of other departments. I am not sure whether he has asked those questions to other departments, but I would want to make it clear to him, if he is looking at an exhaustive list or a more exhaustive list from this department, then he will have to look at other departments of government who are providing direct or indirect service to Manitobans.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the minister for that, and I trust it is not an overly demanding undertaking. I will be cautious in asking for such undertakings, but I think it is important that I be familiar with what programs are being supported by the Department of Justice in particular.

Moving on to another recommendation of Pedlar, and that was that a victim impact statement program be instituted in Manitoba on a permanent basis. When we last canvassed this issue, I believe that there was no permanent program in place, although I understand that there had been pilot projects in the past in Manitoba. I am wondering if the minister can tell the committee what is being done with the victim impact statement program. This is, of course, for victims of domestic violence.

* (1550)

Mrs. Vodrey: At the moment we do not have an official victim impact statement program. However, Corrections will include comments from the victim in their predisposition report. A victim also can make a presentation through Crown counsel and sentencing or can also be called as a witness on sentencing.

However, I have told the member several times that we as a government are undertaking now a look at victims across the province. What are the needs of victims? The issue of victim impact statements is certainly one of the areas that we are examining.

Mr. Mackintosh: The Pedlar report recommended that a legal advocacy office be established and that was envisioned to be separate from the Women's Advocacy Program. It was recommended that the office have a toll-free telephone line and essentially provide services to women in abusive relationships. I am wondering if the minister has given further consideration to that recommendation.

Mrs. Vodrey: Maybe the time has come to sort of broaden the discussion a little bit, because I see the member is going through the Pedlar report and choosing sort of a recommendation here, a recommendation there and wanting to know exactly the status. So let me just tell him that the department is preparing a comprehensive report in response to the Pedlar report.

I know last year when we were discussing the Pedlar report, I pointed out to him--and I think it is in the introduction part of the Pedlar report--that it was never prepared with the view that it was going to be specifically implemented point by point or issue by issue. Instead there was the intention that it be implemented in a comprehensive kind of way. So what the Department of Justice is doing at the moment is reviewing the report, reviewing our response to it and making it a comprehensive report.

I can tell the member that in some cases we have even gone further than what is requested within the Pedlar report. I do not have that response at the moment. I am looking forward to receiving it, and certainly when we receive it, then that will be something that I will be happy to talk with him about.

Mr. Mackintosh: I take it, then, there is some ongoing review of Pedlar outside of the implementation committee. Is that right?

Mrs. Vodrey: Just for the record I want to be careful that, when we are using the term "implementation committee," we know which committee the member is actually referring to. There has been a committee that has been looking at the Pedlar report and presenting as they did the CART model to the implementation committee of the Family Violence Court, and that is the one chaired by the Chief Judge. So I am not clear which committee the member is speaking about when he speaks about an implementation committee.

I think the answer to his question is not in the name of a committee but rather that the Department of Justice is looking carefully at the Pedlar report. We have understood what has been asked of us and we are preparing a comprehensive response and that is what Pedlar asked for in her report. As I have said, I have not seen that yet but that is being done through the Department of Justice.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the position of the minister as to whether a legal advocacy office to provide general information would be valuable or not and is she prepared to implement the recommendation?

Mrs. Vodrey: I have to go back to the response I gave to the member one question earlier, and that is that the department is looking at a comprehensive response. The member has in his question taken out of context, out of the context of where this legal advocacy office is placed and asks, does that sound like a good idea?

I think there are a number of questions that have to be answered: when would that advice be given, at what point in the process would that advice be given, who would give it? That is why I refer him to the comprehensive response which is being developed by my department, in which, with some background information, there will be developed within the context that I believe is important to developing a very comprehensive response to the very real concern of the area of domestic violence.

Mr. Mackintosh: I fail to understand the minister's wording of a comprehensive approach. That is exactly what Pedlar was or attempted to be, and part of a comprehensive approach was an advocacy office.

There are recommendations in Pedlar regarding The Family Maintenance Act. I am wondering if the minister has familiarized herself with those recommendations before introducing Bill 3.

* (1600)

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly, in reviewing the report, I am very well aware of the recommendations. However, if the member is interested in talking about changes that we are making in the area of maintenance enforcement and which will affect any number of other acts, I think it would best be placed in the discussion on the line that relates to Family Law, where I can provide additional background to the member in terms of how we arrived at the details of the act which we brought forward.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the court now provide a certified copy of orders of prohibition and nonmolestation to an applicant once the order has been granted, because that was one of the recommendations from Pedlar?

Mrs. Vodrey: The Courts Division arranges for certification and so if we could discuss that question when Courts Division are here.

Mr. Mackintosh: Pedlar also recommended that regional justice committees be established throughout the province. I understand that there are Justice committees in some communities. I am wondering what the minister has concluded as to the effectiveness and the future of such committees.

Mrs. Vodrey: I will certainly try and provide a more full answer to the member, but I am still finding it somewhat difficult to answer isolated questions that he is bringing forward from the report which he has in front of him at the moment. I have provided him with the answer in the approach that this government is taking to the Pedlar report and that is a comprehensive response.

The member said he does not quite understand comprehensive. I wonder what part he does not understand. Pedlar made the recommendations but said there was not an expectation that the recommendations would be ticked off as seven of 10 recommendations had been fulfilled and so on.

Pedlar understood in making the recommendations that there would need to be a comprehensive look at these recommendations within a system. We had to look at how we could--in some cases recommendations might go together because they would be serving a certain group of people. So I am having a little trouble with individual questions when I have said to him that I have not yet seen the comprehensive report which has been prepared in response to Pedlar; that is coming.

I have said that most certainly when I receive it, and how this government will continue to approach the Pedlar report, I will be more than happy to talk with him about it.

Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that, though I have been speaking very frequently about the comprehensive report or the comprehensive response which we will be making, let us not ever forget that a lot has been done so far. There seems to be a sense coming from across the way that maybe nothing has been done, and so I want to assure the member and the people of Manitoba who will be looking at this that in fact a great deal has been done.

This government's record, Mr. Chair, in the area of concern about domestic violence, dealing with domestic violence offenders, dealing with the victims of domestic violence, is really a standard across Canada. I understand the member's interest in wanting to look point by point at the Pedlar report, and I have told him that response is coming, but let us not ever forget the big picture here. There is a big picture and the big picture is the establishment of a specialized court to deal with domestic violence.

Within that court the training of Crown attorneys and now that training for Crown attorneys has not just occurred for the few Crown attorneys who operate within the Domestic Violence Court in the city of Winnipeg or the city of Brandon but there has been training for Crown attorneys across the province, and the judiciary has taken the issue very seriously and has looked at training of their own. So this is certainly not a stand-still government, this is a government that has moved aggressively and first, let us not forget first, across this country in dealing with areas of domestic violence.

I also spoke about not only the formation of the Domestic Violence Court, not only the training of the Crown attorneys who work within it, not only the training of the judiciary, but also about work which we have done in the area of Corrections. In the area of Corrections, as I said, we have been looking at programs which deal with offenders in the area of domestic violence. There are programs which are available within our institutions, programs which are available through Community Corrections, and we really have, I believe, been looking to make sure that we are providing on the offenders side some support which we hope will change the behaviour of the offender or change the insight.

I go back to an earlier question that the member said, where he said, well, he supports both. He supports intervention of the CART model to support the victim and he supports intervention with the offender. I just do not want him to think that that intervention is not happening now, though he has given a name to a program, an American program, the CART model, which he is interested in and this intervention program.

In fact, there are currently treatment programs within Corrections which are dealing with offenders. There is support for women who are victims, and I have undertaken to provide the member with the programs which are provided through the Department of Justice, Women's Advocacy Program is one.

I have also said that there are programs available to victims and victims' families, children very specifically, which are available through other departments of government.

I just want to make it clear to the member that, though he is choosing to go point by point through the report, I have described how we are doing it. Do not ever lose sight of the big picture here. Do not ever lose sight of the fact that this government has moved ahead and paid significant attention in the area of domestic violence.

* (1610)

Not perfect yet. We understand that there is always more that can be done, and we certainly are always looking for ways to develop improvements. That is why we are looking at the Pedlar report and how this government can respond and can continue to respond. Maybe that is really what we have to look at, is our continued response in the area of domestic violence, and I would say that there are many individuals and many groups within the system who are working carefully and thoughtfully in the area of domestic violence.

One is the implementation committee of the Family Violence Court. Perhaps, as I said last year, that name "implementation committee" has become kind of a misnomer now. It has hung on to that committee. It was the accurate name when the committee first began its work, but it is continued, so it perhaps needs to have another kind of name.

I would just refer him again to, Roman numeral, page viii in the Pedlar report, and I will just quote how Pedlar saw this report: "The final report and recommendations are not intended to single out any particular area of response, but instead should be viewed as a comprehensive proposal to effect real change in the way that domestic violence is viewed and responded to in Manitoba."

The member said he did not quite understand how I used comprehensive. Well, the word "comprehensive" came from the Pedlar report itself. I think we have been over this ground enough that he understands comprehensive now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, that was quite a lesson. I do not know what that was about. The minister, I suppose, wants to avoid answering certain questions on specific recommendations in Pedlar, which is part of a comprehensive approach, by talking about what is comprehensive or what is not.

There is a point of order here, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Newman): A point of order has been raised.

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member is wrong using the term "avoid." I have, in fact, given him a full answer and explained to him further details that he is asking will be forthcoming when the comprehensive report is delivered.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Newman): I think there is a disagreement as to the facts. Please continue, member for St. Johns.

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee whether the Community Advisory Committee, which is monitoring the implementation of the Pedlar report, is active and when it last met?

Mrs. Vodrey: We spoke yesterday about the Community Advisory Committee. As I said at that time, I do not know the exact date when they last met, but I can tell the member that they have done quite a lot of work. They made representation to the Parliament of Canada on antistalking, and I have spoken this afternoon about the fact that members of that committee made a presentation to the Chief Judge's implementation committee. They made a presentation to that committee on CART, and yesterday, when we talked about this committee, I told the member it was my view that they had done quite a lot of work, much of it very effective work.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister been advised when the committee will present the so-called comprehensive response to Pedlar?

Mrs. Vodrey: It is the Department of Justice which is preparing this report, and because in our discussion we have been using the term committee and implementation committee and so on, I just want to make sure on the record that we have the right group that is preparing the report.

As I said, I have not seen the report yet. I certainly will be interested to see it. I am expecting that I will receive the report sometime in the fall. A time will be arranged after that, when I have received it, to have a discussion with the Pedlar implementation committee, the commmunity advisory committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just to make it clear then, the minister is expecting a report from her departmental officials on the issues touched on or the recommendations set out in Pedlar. Is that understanding correct?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct. The department is developing its comprehensive response to the recommendations listed in Pedlar. However, I will remind the member that we took the word "comprehensive" to mean comprehensive, so we are really looking at what is it that we are doing and we can do.

I think we may find that, in fact, this government has made movements that have even added to recommendations which may have been contained in the Pedlar report.

Mr. Mackintosh: The challenge of violence, particularly youth violence, that is increasingly a concern to Manitobans requires a comprehensive approach in the sense that many government departments have to get their heads together to deal with the challenge. There is, as the minister recognizes, I am sure, a significant role for schools. I know that an antiviolence co-ordinator is in place in the Department of Education to look at this issue.

I am wondering if the minister is aware of any ongoing interdepartmental initiatives to deal with violence as a cross-departmental issue.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly all of the initiatives which I have brought forward are approved by government as a whole, and so it is certainly government's support and view that all of these initiatives--they do require various levels of co-operation with other departments.

The member did reference some co-operation where the Department of Education recognized the importance of the violence co-ordinator, has recognized in funding the needs of emotionally and behaviourally disordered young people through the funding formula. That was a very big step in recognition of that behaviour and making funding available, because what happens then is there is support, counselling, behaviour modification. Whatever is required can then be accessed because of that change in the funding model.

That is comprehensive action on behalf of a government who is able to say that we recognize there is a problem of youth crime and violence and how can we deal with it, not only through the Department of Justice but through the Department of Education.

Through the Department of Family Services, the minister and I have discussed a number of initiatives, and I think even as recently as yesterday in Estimates, we discussed some of the joint work which is required between government departments, and I think we were speaking about parental responsibility and some of the supports necessary from the Department of Family Services. So government does work together in these areas. We work together in the planning, and we work together in co-operating to deliver the program, though someone will take a lead responsibility.

Then I spoke a little bit earlier about the Child and Youth Secretariat which falls to the lead responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), but four departments participate within that Secretariat: Education, Health, Justice and Family Services.

It is through that model that initiatives can be examined on behalf of a child or a young person and the resources, whatever those resources might be--sometimes it is the resources of people who have a particular training. Sometimes it is to move money from line to line.

A perfect example is where money was moved from the Department of Health to the Department of Education in the treatment of medically fragile children, so that those medically fragile children who are currently in school will receive the medical attention that they require from a nurse, from somebody medically trained. That is the importance of the Child and Youth Secretariat, and Justice has a part in that. We have talked about a few areas in which Justice might participate.

* (1620)

I should also mention, too, that the initiatives which have been brought forward by this government, which have been announced by the Department of Justice, not only have had co-operation and support from other departments within government but certainly from other groups outside of government. Police have been very supportive and then the divisions within the Department of Justice, because a number of the initiatives have required co-operation between prosecutions, between courts and between corrections and policing.

The member is right if he is suggesting that the solutions are not single. They do not come from one particular place and all of the answers found with that one particular initiative. They are co-operative. They must be.

We look for that continued co-operation with people outside of government and certainly with our Child and Youth Secretariat. The member can see that we have set up a concrete vehicle within government to make sure that co-operation happens.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister involved with the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) in any cross-departmental committee or review of shelters and safe home policy in Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member is right in that we as ministers do work co-operatively and closely. Where we have initiatives which we are interested in exploring, we do make sure that our colleagues are aware, particularly those which may have a particular interest in some of the initiatives which we are bringing forward.

The member is referring to a very specific study. That is what I cannot tell if he is. Maybe he could make himself clear about what he may be referring to.

Mr. Mackintosh: There are two things driving my question. First, the NDP caucus task force found out first-hand of the challenges of establishing safe houses, particularly in remote communities. We heard from representatives of remote and northern aboriginal communities where it is very difficult to have a place where a woman can go and not be recognized going there. We heard from some people who came over to Flin Flon from Saskatchewan that the Saskatchewan government was undertaking some study or some needs assessment to determine how best to establish safe houses in those remote communities.

As well, we heard from representatives of shelters of the concerns that they were dealing with on a daily basis, particularly regarding the kinds of services that are offered, the growing professionalization of shelters, and, of course, we heard and visited the Flin Flon Crisis Centre which this government shut down, and which, by the way, the Saskatchewan government continues to fund on a per diem basis.

So that is one foundation for the question. The other is, we have heard a lot about the federal legislation which was passed last week and which will very seriously affect transfer payments to the province of Manitoba over the next number of years. We have often heard people express concerns about the impact on health care and education.

I am also very concerned about any possible impact on the funding of women's shelters. So with those express concerns, I wonder if the minister has been reviewing the issues affecting women's shelters and the need for safe homes, particularly in remote communities, with her colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) or any other colleague in her cabinet.

Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, let me start with the concerns about federal cuts. That has been a great concern of this government. We have continued to make those points, and we still are looking at what the effect of the cuts from the federal government will mean to the people of Manitoba. We are forecasting what the effect will be. We are forecasting what the number will be, but we still have yet to know exactly what other changes, even including the reductions which we have been told to expect, are going to be made.

We do not know what the federal Minister of Human Resources is going to do when he makes his changes in the area of the social safety net and social services. We are really unclear about that. We see now that it is a report which is now going to be delayed again, so we know that there are some changes which are coming as a result of the federal government. But to my knowledge we do not know certainly from the federal Minister of Human Resources what his changes are going to be and exactly the dollar amount that will be changed for our transfer payments.

However, my colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is working very closely with this issue and certainly works very closely with the federal Minister of Human Resources. She has had a number of meetings with him, I understand. Sometimes she asks for meetings; they do not always happen.

I am surprised and I would be interested if the member had raised this during the Estimates of the Department of Family Services so that a more detailed answer could be provided to him from the minister who is directly involved in this issue. But certainly--if the member asks, do we talk about issues--we talk frequently, and our concerns are expressed as a government and as a group of ministers to the federal government.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister informed herself as to what the likely effect will be on the funding of women's shelters by changes to CAP?

* (1630)

Mrs. Vodrey: The member asks me very specific questions about another department, and I have to say the other department may still be gathering further information. The concerns have been expressed; I have told the member, to my knowledge, that I do not have the exact details certainly at my fingertips now. The member is asking questions of the Minister of Justice which most properly would be asked of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) who can give details about the work that is her direct responsibility. So I am left to wonder why you did not do that.

Mr. Mackintosh: My understanding is that questions were asked of the Minister of Family Services by our critic, but I am specifically concerned about the impact on the administration of justice by changes to federal funding, and one of the changes that will impact on justice is the provision of safe places for women. If there are to be significantly reduced funding levels then I will be looking to this government to see how they are going to respond. If they have any way of responding I trust they will respond by making sure that the funding will not be decreased in any way for abused women in Manitoba.

I would ask the minister to inform herself of any other possible impacts on provincial programs in her department as a result of changes to the EPF or CAP.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking if there will be any effect on the Department of Justice by changes that the federal government has said that they will be making in terms of transfer payments and budget, and so I will answer really in a broader sense in terms of saying that we are aware that we can expect some changes in the area of Legal Aid and YOA. The federal government has indicated that they would like to renegotiate the contracts there and so obviously we are going to have to work very carefully and any changes will certainly be evident then in next year's budget.

Mr. Mackintosh: I take it, then, that the federal government has indicated they wanted to renegotiate the contracts with a view to decreased federal funding.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, we have an indication that the federal government would like to reduce their contributions in any renegotiation but the negotiations have not started yet, and we have some negotiating positions as well which we would like to bring forward and so we will be looking at that in a very detailed way.

Mr. Mackintosh: We earlier talked about the programs for survivors of domestic violence. I know in the Lavoie matter, the issue arose as to whether treatment or intervention programs should be available to offenders before a trial, and there were some expressions from the counselling community or from one individual in the counselling community that it would be inappropriate to provide intervention, before sentencing at least, because enrollment in the program might be used as a way to obtain a reduced sentence. I believe that was the rationale.

I am wondering what the minister's view is of that kind of programming before sentencing.

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

Mrs. Vodrey: I believe the member is speaking about possible interventions, and I will remove this to a general discussion and away from a specific case, which might take place before--I guess there have been suggestions some might take place before trial, some might take place before sentencing, but the purpose of such intervention with the accused person is that perhaps the accused person then could begin some process of rehabilitation and on certain conditions return to the family.

There are some people who are very supportive of that, because they believe that one of the difficulties in the domestic violence system is that most often the man is removed from the family. His presence is removed from the family, and there is also an economic hardship. So there is a group of people who would speak up on that side.

There are, however, as he has noted, others who do not support that. They believe that this may, in fact, be an easy way out for an offender, to avoid time within the institution and sentencing which they believe the offender should actually participate in. So others are not supportive of that particular position.

I have to say that right now I am concerned where there would be any situation undertaken where there has not been a true rehabilitation to the offender. However, I can just say to him that at the moment there really seem to be two quite distinct opinions, two completely different schools of thought on this and there is not agreement on how effective this is, or whether or not it should take place.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering what the minister's view is.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I gave it. He was not listening. I said to him that I am very concerned about any situation which may lead to a reduction in sentencing where there is perhaps no true rehabilitation, and so I would want to be convinced that any intervention provided a true rehabilitation. Otherwise, I would look for the individual to participate fully in the rehabilitation which would be offered following sentencing.

* (1640)

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the Department of Justice fund any intervention programs for offenders before sentencing?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I can tell the member that the Winnipeg Remand Centre offers a program in domestic violence, a short-term program, and also a program in anger management.

Mr. Mackintosh: I think I have some further questions but we will pursue those I guess under Community Corrections. It would be more appropriate.

I would like to look at the prosecutions now in the different courts. First, the Youth Court, does the minister have a breakdown of the staff years of prosecutors in that court? Could she tell the committee what the total staff years are?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the staff years in terms of Crown attorneys, I believe that is what the member is looking at, is in Winnipeg, two permanent Crown attorneys and three term positions. In rural Manitoba, I believe he asked for all of Manitoba, all Crowns in the rural areas do both youth and adult work.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister clarify that the two permanent Crowns in Winnipeg youth court are Don Slough and Cathy Everett?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I can confirm those are the two permanent positions. As the member knows, two Crowns are going to be working with the inquest into the child deaths, so we will be back-filling those positions on a term basis.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee how long the three term employees have been on staff?

Mrs. Vodrey: I will have to get that information for the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister not recognize a problem of staffing in the youth court, when we have serious concerns expressed by the defence bar about delays, turnaround, and we only have two permanent staff in there, recognizing that term staff often are looking for other full-time permanent employment and may not be committed to fully developing their careers in the youth court? I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, in trying to answer the member's question, he refers to the issue of delay and concerns about delay, and as I explained yesterday, and perhaps he has forgotten between then and now, in youth court, the time frame of court dates available are, in-custody between two and a half months and three and a half months, out-of-custody four months. So this time frame is, in fact, I believe, quite a good one, especially when we look across Canada.

I made it clear yesterday we are always looking for ways that we can, in fact, improve how timely court dates can be set, but this time frame that I explained to him yesterday is one which I think is quite helpful, and I believe I even said yesterday that I do not have that information in front of me at the moment, that there are some dates that are available even as early as July and that others are available, certainly by August.

The member seems to be trying to keep going some idea that there is a delay in the court system and right now he is talking about the youth court system. I would ask him, really, is he finding two and a half months to three and a half months a delay?--because it seems to me a good record across the country, though I have made it clear we are always looking for ways to improve.

* (1650)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee how many staff years are in the Family Violence Court in Winnipeg?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the number of staff years in the Family Violence Court in Winnipeg is five staff years.

Mr. Mackintosh: How many of the five are permanent and how many are term?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told all five are permanent.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain why in the Youth Court there are three term positions being maintained rather than permanent positions?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of the committee. I would like to just take a moment to introduce Mr. Rob Finlayson, who is the acting Director of Winnipeg Prosecutions. The answer to the question of why some positions are term is that we did have two Crowns; we do have two Crowns who are permanent, and, in an effort to continually increase the efficiency of the youth court, we continue to bring in additional Crowns. Those Crowns would come in on term positions.

Mr. Mackintosh: With the secondment of Mr. Slough to the inquest, will there be additional term positions and what will be the cost of those?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I did answer in an earlier answer, yes, we will be back filling. No new monies are required. We will find from within the Prosecutions budget. I am told that one of the Crowns who is taking a position is a very experienced Crown with at least 10 years experience.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister prepared to deal with the night court under this item, under Public Prosecutions?

Mrs. Vodrey: Night court would be best dealt with in the Courts Division.

Mr. Mackintosh: Where should we deal with the Women's Advocacy Program?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, it is best dealt with under the line of Victims Assistance. The number is 4.2.(e).

Mr. Mackintosh: In the Family Violence Court, is there a particular Crown attorney who is assigned to child abuse cases?

Mrs. Vodrey: In the Family Violence Court all of the prosecutors are trained to deal with child abuse cases.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder where we should deal with the Victims Assistance Programs. That would be under section (e) on the next page, top of page 105?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, under that same section of 2.(e).

Mr. Mackintosh: The recommendations in the Dewar report predated my time here, and I am just wondering if the minister is aware as to whether there has been a thorough audit of those recommendations and an implementation of them, at least in general.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, that predates me as minister and predates my election, so I will have to take that question under advisement, and I will get back to the member with the information.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister would also undertake to advise whether there has been a thorough audit and an implementation of the recommendations of the Hughes inquiry.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I would be pleased to look into what steps have been taken regarding an audit of the Hughes inquiry, as well.

* (1700)

Mr. Mackintosh: The northern justice initiative, I understand, comes under this item. Since over the past several months I have received a number of anecdotes of excessive delay in the prosecution of some offences in the North, I am wondering what the northern justice initiative is about in general terms and whether there are any initiatives being pursued right now, particularly following the recommendations of the AJI report on the timely prosecution of offences in northern Manitoba.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, again, this is an initiative that is being led by Courts and the Courts Division, so we may get into some more of the detail when Courts comes, but just to give the member a little bit of information about it, a plan has been developed.

We have worked with Courts leading the initiative, but Prosecutions has been involved. The Chief Judge has been involved. There have been visits to the community. A plan is now underway, and I am told that representatives of the Department of Justice were in the northern communities approximately a week to 10 days ago. The communities are supportive of the plan that we have in place in order to deal with the situation that we have now.

Part of the solution is to make more effective as quickly as possible court time available because, as the member knows, some of the northern communities are somewhat isolated.

We fly into those communities, and weather sometimes has prohibited our flying in, so we have taken, again, a cross-departmental approach to the problem-solving, and I am pleased to say that it seems to have met with certainly support from the communities.

Mr. Mackintosh: I will pursue that matter further in Estimates, I think under Aboriginal Justice Initiatives.

I understand that the law requires that Crown attorneys be present at every bail application hearing. Is it the minister's understanding that, in fact, Crown attorneys have been present at all bail applications under her tenure?

Mrs. Vodrey: It is our view that the law does permit the police to deal with this, however we have in Manitoba the belief that Crown attorneys should be available.

We have a mixed practice in that Crown attorneys are physically present in many cases; however, Crown attorneys can also be available by phone to the police, and that practice is one which we have wanted to make sure was available to accused persons.

Mr. Mackintosh: So is it the minister's understanding that Crown attorneys need not be present, but that it is the policy of the government that they be present?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, it is our view that Crown attorneys must be available. They need not be present in all circumstances, but they must be available. They can be contacted by phone, as I have said.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,722,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,051,400--pass; (3) Witness Programs $582,000--pass.

2.(b) Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,400.

* (1710)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I just would like to take a moment to introduce again Mr. Ron Perozzo, the Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, and Dr. Peter Markesteyn, who is the Chief Medical Examiner for Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: I just want to welcome Dr. Markesteyn here. We know each other from another movie. I know last year at this time things were rather hot on the issue of the Medical Examiner's office, but I appreciate his contribution to public life and the difficult challenges that he has to deal with on a daily basis.

During the media investigations, I guess we call it, into the issue of the Health Sciences' infant deaths, a remark was attributed to Dr. Markesteyn. Of course, I do not know if it is accurate or out of context or what but that the Medical Examiner's office was suffering from a lack of resources. I believe that was in the context of explaining why there had not been some earlier responses to the infant deaths at the Health Sciences Centre.

I am wondering if the minister is aware of the nature of such resource problems in the office and what, if anything, the government is attempting to do to rectify the problem.

Mrs. Vodrey: The member has alluded to some remarks. I think it is important that they appear in some context. The context, I understand, is around the issue of a central facility. I would just like to make it clear to the member that we in Justice and the Chief Medical Examiner are working with Health, and we are looking to address any issues or concerns which would come from such a centralized facility.

However, it is a complex issue. There are many professional people who are involved, so right now it is at a committee stage where we are examining the issues. However, in terms of the Chief Medical Examiner's office itself, the Department of Justice has for some time been involved in modernization of the Medical Examiner's system and also its legislative underpinnings. For example, the Chief Medical Examiner's administrative offices were moved to Eaton Place and staff medical examiners were replaced by fee-for-service examiners.

The Fatality Inquiries Act was enacted in March of 1990 and increased resources have been provided to the Chief Medical Examiner's office to deal with issues surrounding toxicology testing. In addition to that we are looking at a new computer system and process improvements for the Chief Medical Examiner's office so that we can look at any trends which might be developing.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee what the committee is that she referred to that is looking at the central facility issue?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the committee that I referred to is chaired by the associate deputy minister. Represented on the committee are the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, the Chief Medical Examiner and officials from other departments which obviously would have an interest, and I look at Finance.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, on the expressed need or desire for a central facility, is it the minister's position that the Chief Medical Examiner's office has sufficient resources to carry out its mandate?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I am satisfied in discussions that the resourcing is adequate, but as I have said this afternoon, we are always looking at ways to improve it.

I am told that the issue around toxicology testing arose, and as a way to deal with that, we did put more money in the budget to try and deal with that. We are also negotiating with St. Boniface Hospital to deal with the toxicology testing issue, as well.

Where issues arise, we attempt to deal with them. We are always looking for improvements, but, yes, I am satisfied with the resourcing at this time, with the information I have received.

Mr. Mackintosh: I note that the Child Death Inquest Review Committee was established, I take it, back in 1993 under the chair of the Chief Medical Examiner, and that was to review every child death in Manitoba.

I am wondering if the minister can explain why no inquest was ordered into the infant deaths at Health Sciences Centre until the last few months, in light of the establishment of that review committee.

* (1720)

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the review committee looked at the first death. They had concerns about it, and they referred it to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It was, however, the numbers and the pattern of the child deaths which led to the calling of the inquest, but the pattern was not evident until about a year later.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering then why the annual report says that the review committee reviews every child death if, in fact, it only reviewed the first death.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the other deaths were not reviewed because they were considered natural and not unexpected. The review committee looks at deaths where there is a concern.

Mr. Mackintosh: Who makes the decision as to whether a death fits the definition of natural and not unexpected?

Mrs. Vodrey: The Chief Medical Examiner makes that decision.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, then, is the description of the mandate of the Child Death Inquest Review Committee wrong in the annual report, where it says that it will "review every child death in Manitoba," or are, in fact, the deaths that are reviewed first screened by the Chief Medical Examiner?

Mrs. Vodrey: I would just like to ask the honourable member if he could give us the page number that he is referring to. He is referring to a very specific statement, and I would like to locate it within the report.

Mr. Mackintosh: Page 10.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that it is every child death, in the opinion of the Chief Medical Examiner, that he considers he requires the advice of the review committee. The committee is an advisory committee available to the Chief Medical Examiner, where he considers that he requires that extra opinion. He has provided an example where he said that the committee does not review a death, for instance, a leukemia death, where the death is clear.

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the Chief Medical Examiner review the circumstances surrounding all 12 of the infant deaths at Health Sciences Centre?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told yes.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister or the Chief Medical Examiner of the view that funding should be provided for interested parties to take part in the inquest regarding the Health Sciences Centre infant deaths and the role of the government?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, those other interested parties would have to get standing from the court, from the judge, and we have no idea of whether or not that standing will be granted and how many the standing may be granted to, if granted at all.

Mr. Mackintosh: Assuming that the families of the deceased infants have standing, is it the position of the minister that there should be some funding for their representation costs at the inquest?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the question is very hypothetical at this point, very speculative. I can refer him to the overwhelming practice across Canada, and that is not to fund interveners at inquests.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am not sure what my view on the issue will be, but I am wondering if there is any precedent in Manitoba for funding interveners at inquests.

Mrs. Vodrey: Not to my knowledge, none that the people here are aware of.

* (1730)

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister advise whether the department or the Chief Medical Examiner's office has reviewed the recommendation set out in the inquiry into the deaths of Helen Betty Osborne and John Joseph Harper contained in the AJI report, particularly as the recommendations affect The Fatality Inquiries Act?

Mrs. Vodrey: In canvassing the memories of the members here, we do not have the information available at this time, and we will have to get back to the member with that information.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, for what it is worth, I want to urge the minister to review Chapter 8 of Volume 2 of the AJI report and, as we debated earlier this afternoon, it is particularly instructive to look at those recommendations now as the inquest begins into the Health Sciences infant deaths and the role of the government. I take it that no amendments have been made to The Fatality Inquiries Act following on the recommendations of the AJI report then.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, in order to be correct on the record without just trying to deal with the memories of individuals here when we do bring forward a lot of amendments year over year to a number of bills, we will look into whether or not there have been amendments and get back to the member. That, as I said, is just to avoid any impression that we might give. It would be better to put on the record the appropriate answer.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wrote to the minister, and I believe I copied the Chief Medical Examiner, inquiring as to whether an inquest has been or will be recommended and set up to deal with the Lavoie murder-suicide. I am wondering if the minister is in a position to respond now.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I am told that no decision has been made yet and that issue will still be discussed with the committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee when she expects a decision to be made?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the discussion will take place in approximately three weeks. I cannot tell the member if the committee will come to a decision on that day, but the issue will be raised in three weeks' time.

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that a fair number of staff changes have been made at the office, and I just wanted to review some of those. I understand that in the last three or four months the office manager has resigned. I am wondering if the minister can confirm whether that is accurate or not.

Mrs. Vodrey: I have just confirmed that that individual retired.

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that another staff member, I believe it is an examiner, has been seconded. I am wondering if that is accurate, and, if so, seconded where?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told one investigator has been seconded to the inquest.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether there are any other investigators independent of the Chief Medical Examiner's office who have been retained to put together evidence for the inquest?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am told, no, not at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, would the minister then confirm that there are three staff people in total assigned to the inquest, that being the two Crown attorneys and the examiner?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, there is one other individual who has been seconded. That is a secretary. The secretary has been seconded to assist with the input of data.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has a date been set for the inquest? What is the length of time of the secondment?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that there is no date set yet for the inquest though we are working with the Chief Judge to look at setting that date. The secondments are open ended.

I would like to go back to the secretary. I am told now that the secretary would not be considered in a secondment. The secretary has a three-month term with the inquest, and we will have a look at how that in fact works. So those seconded that the member spoke about, three of them, there is an additional fourth person, a secretary who is on a three-month term.

* (1740)

Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that the Chief Medical Examiner's office provides a service to assist families and relatives in coping with grief. I was not aware of that service earlier. I noticed it in the Supplementary Estimates.

Would the minister confirm that that is in fact one of the services provided by that office? How is that service provided? I mean are there people that--perhaps explain, is there a SY for that purpose and, if so, what is the background of the individual and the job description?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the investigators do a preliminary contact. They do not do a specific grief counselling, but they have a contact around the issue of grieving and then individuals or families are referred to qualified grief counsellors by the investigators.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I believe the critic will be here in a second, and I have some questions that I just want to raise about a constituent, and I probably would give some advance warning to the staff, that Mr. Hatch is a person who is a constituent about whom I have written to the minister before. I have recent correspondence from the minister, and I will be asking questions in a moment about his situation.

I could ask one question now, though, which would be fairly routine. The last correspondence we had from the minister about the case I wrote to her about Mr. Hatch and his concerns with the Justice department, the minister wrote back on March 30--well, perhaps I could wait and let the member for St. Johns--I think he is going to pass that line.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 4.2(b) Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $385,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $859,800--pass.

Item 4.2(c) Provincial Policing $52,299,200.

Mr. Doer: I can deal with this item under Policing, because it deals with the administration of justice.

The minister indicated that Mr. Hatch, in response to a letter I wrote to her, that Mr. Hatch's case would be dealt with by Mr. Whitley.

Can the minister indicate to me just the exact date that Mr. Whitley left the Justice department?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Whitley, who was the ADM, AG in Prosecutions, left in mid-May. I believe the date is in and around the 15th of May. I would need to check the exact date, but mid-May was the time frame.

Mr. Doer: In the letter sent to my attention on March 30, 1995, dealing with Mr. Hatch--now this is a case I have raised in Estimates right back to 1993, and let me, just by way of background, indicate that he is a person who, I feel, has not been treated very well by the Justice department in terms of follow-up on a case where his family was the victim.

He had a number of concerns along the way in terms of the administration of justice. He had a number of legitimate concerns, I feel, about the contact between the Crown attorneys department and his own family. He had a number of concerns dealing with legitimate issues of plea bargaining and other issues, which I think deal with the greater frustration that may be in the public about the administration of justice and the credibility of the Justice department and its role to legitimately be effective on behalf of the public that may become victims of crimes.

His daughter was involved with an individual who ended up robbing their home. He felt his daughter was in quite a bit of risk. He felt he was in quite a bit of risk. He kept finding out that the person who was alleged to have committed the crime was released and charges were reduced. Matters were not communicated to him. I think that he has a number of legitimate concerns which I have written over and over and over again to the Department of Justice.

So I would like to ask, the minister writes that Stu Whitley, Q.C. is reviewing the concerns of Mr. Hatch. They remain outstanding after Mr. Miller's handling of the complaints, and he has received an informal interim briefing and will be getting a report soon. That is signed by the minister's office. I would like to ask, have they received the interim briefing and have they received the report on the matters raised?

Mrs. Vodrey: I would like to just take a moment to introduce again Mr. Les Kee, who is the Director of Special Prosecutions, and Mr. Bob Chamberlain, who is the Director of Law Enforcement Services.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has raised the matter of a constituent who has had frequent discussions and letter writing with the Department of Justice. I know that a great deal of time has been spent in trying to answer the inquires of this particular individual and in trying to provide him with the answers that are available to us to satisfy his questions.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked around some very specific information, have we got it yet and so on, and I would need to take his questions, and I will get back to him tomorrow.

I am more than happy to provide the information, but the individuals here do not necessarily have all of the information available to them right now. So if the Leader of the Opposition has some questions, I will be happy to take those questions as notice and when Estimates begin tomorrow, provide the information to him.

* (1750)

Mr. Doer: I will start with the letter that the minister wrote on March 30, that he has received an informal interim briefing and will be getting a report soon. It starts off that Mr. Whitley is reviewing the concerns after Mr. Miller--I guess Mr. Miller has left, and Mr. Whitley has left the department recently, so the question is, who is following up on behalf of Mr. Whitley? Is it Mr. Kee?

Has he completed his briefing, and has the report been provided to Mr. Hatch? Will it be provided to Mr. Hatch, and if it has not, when can we expect it?

Second, the matter I raised with the minister on March 20, 1995, is a question that Mr. Hatch was informed by Mr. Miller in a letter that files pertaining to the person who has been convicted in the charge with Mr. Hatch--and I think the government has the name of the individual--that this file contained notices to the Crown attorney's office to apprise Mr. Hatch of any and all developments. However, upon reviewing the file, Mr. Hatch discovered that they contained no such notices as described by Mr. Miller.

Mr. Hatch states clearly, and we also raise this with your office, that there is a serious discrepancy in the facts, which we ask you to review, and, again, this issue of the Crown attorneys keeping Mr. Hatch apprised is an issue we raised right back to 1993.

So I would like to start with those two questions. I am sure the department will have the opportunity to review their files on this matter.

But I guess it is not only Mr. Hatch I am concerned about. I am very concerned about his belief, his strongly held beliefs, that his Justice department let him down, and, Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that other people may feel the same way. Mr. Hatch is, obviously, articulate, persistent and quite well written, and he documents very, very factually all his concerns in a very, very effective way, but not everybody who comes to us as MLAs is able to follow up in the same kind of persistent manner.

What I am concerned about is not only about Mr. Hatch's case and his feeling that the Justice department must have some sensitivity and accountability to his family and himself, but that other people whom we have listened to from time to time feel the same thing and that they feel the Justice department is--what I am concerned about is the Justice department in dealing with cases.

I know it is a large responsibility. You have so many cases on the docket, and you have so many matters to deal with, and you are plea bargaining here and you are plea bargaining there, and you are reducing charges here and you are doing something else over there, and at the end of the day, some people feel that they are not looking at the whole docket, but that they are looking at the one case and the one family and the one reality of their contact with an individual in the justice system that has caused them quite a lot of pain and grief and concern.

We, of course, raise the issue of backlogs, and I know the government has to deal with that, but every case, I believe, must be dealt with with the utmost sensitivity to the victims or the alleged victims and to the community, because it is, after all, a justice system for the whole community.

I raise those specific questions with the minister in light of this individual who has the skills to raise these issues and the determination to keep these issues before both myself and the government, that we not lose sight of some of the things that are happening. We are not just rationalizing them away or justifying them away, but we listen to people who are coming in contact with our justice system and feel that it was wanting, that our system was wanting in their time of need.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I said to the member, we will certainly follow up on the questions that he has brought forward on behalf of his constituent. But he said a number of things which I think are important, and his words were, when he referred to Mr. Hatch, he said, his feeling. I think that is really a very telling phrase in discussion of any individual and particularly this individual, a case I am familiar with.

I understand that it is very difficult sometimes in that people do not always receive from the justice system the answer that they would like to have. They do not always receive the judgment in court that they would like to have, and they take it onward where possible, continue to take it onward. It is their feeling, as the member has very accurately identified, that causes them to continue to believe that there is something further.

I can tell the member that certainly the Department of Justice has, over some time, made a great deal of effort to assist Mr. Hatch and provide information to him, and we will provide the update to the member now regarding the latest inquiry from Mr. Hatch, but I think it is important to recognize that many individuals hold a point of view that relates very specifically to their feeling about how they would have liked an outcome to be and are not satisfied because it is their feeling the outcome should have been different.

Mr. Chair, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) also speaks about sensitivity, and he believes that the Department of Justice should proceed with sensitivity. I can tell him I believe that is the case. We deal with sensitive cases on an ongoing basis. We have specially trained Crowns who deal with very sensitive cases. If he has a very specific example in the area of sensitivity where he feels that has not been the case--and understand that I suppose there are thresholds that people believe they would need more or less.

Sometimes it is very hard to judge, but I believe that the people within the system, within the Department of Justice do proceed with sensitivity. Perhaps some people need even more, even greater, and we try to provide it to them. I would not ever like to have remain on the record a comment that the Department of Justice does not have sensitivity to people's concerns.

The Leader of the Opposition also says he brings forward a very specific case, the case of Mr. Hatch. He says there are other individuals that he knows about. If he knows about them, I wish he would tell me. I think it would be important for us to know rather than to leave a vague sense of people who are somehow dissatisfied and that we can actually do something to change their feelings, because that is really what the member is asking, the Leader of the Opposition is asking. He is asking for a way for us to change people's feelings about certain outcomes. Sometimes it is going to be very difficult. We can continue to review with them the process that they have been through, but it is not always possible, Mr. Chair, to provide them exactly what they need.

The member also made a suggestion of not proceeding carefully. That was the third point that I noted. I am just asking that if he has information regarding places where he feels we have not proceeded carefully, then I hope he will also raise those with me. As Minister of Justice it would be important for me to know that.

Mr. Doer: Well, the minister is smirking and I think that--I really--

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: Point of order, Mr. Chair, I do not believe it is at all parliamentary to comment on any expression that the member is attempting to characterize or cast. I have been in Estimates this afternoon for three and a half hours answering questions very diligently. If the member has some problem with the answers, perhaps he should raise that rather than a characterization.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is a dispute.

* * *

Mr. Doer: I have looked through this file since 1993, and I can name dates, times and places where the Justice department has not fulfilled what they committed to fulfill to the person and the individual that I am describing.

To take one or two words and take them out of context and to lecture us about a citizen who has not yet received a response on specific questions that he has raised in this House through us since 1993, I find quite disappointing. I was quite willing for the minister--

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: Point of order, Mr. Chair, about giving a lecture. The member, I believe, asked a question. Within his single question were contained--I had four subquestions. I understand that he wanted to put more information on the record before the time that this committee would rise this evening, so I did not answer the fourth question. To somehow call the answers to legitimate questions a lecture--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. A point of order is to be raised when there is a breach of the rules.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow (Wednesday).