Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, a number of issues. First of all, I think if you would canvass the House, you would find that there is unanimous consent to waive private members' hour today.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour for today? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Secondly, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will be called for Monday next at 10 a.m. for the consideration of Bill 33. There are a number of Justice bills that we will also be announcing for that committee. I am just confirming the availability of the minister and will likely add those bills tomorrow to their list. That is, we are working that out with the opposition. In fact, I have confirmation that the minister is available, so I would add that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will be called to consider Bill 33 first, followed by Bill 4, Bill 11, Bill 12 and Bill 18, which I believe are all Justice bills.

Madam Speaker: For the benefit of all members of the House, I will repeat the announcement. The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Monday, June 28, at 10 a.m. to consider Bills 33, 4, 11, 12 and 18.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, for this afternoon in Committee of Supply, again if leave is required–I think we are all kind of a little bit losing track of where we are in the order–but for the Chamber would be the continuation of Highways and Transportation. In the committee room where Consumer and Corporate Affairs is currently meeting, that will also continue, and in the remaining committee room, we would ask if, with leave, the Department of Justice could begin their Estimates, which would adjourn at 4 p.m. and then resume the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House first to consider the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation, have them continue in the Chamber? [agreed]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to consider the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Room 255? [agreed]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to deal with the Estimates of the Department of Justice in Room 254 until 4 p.m., at which time the Department of Family Services will recommence for today only? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chair, I am pleased to present to the committee the Estimates of Expenditure for Manitoba Justice for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

At Manitoba Justice, we undertake the development of programs and identify our priorities based on our government's and department's vision, our mission goals, and the input of the people of Manitoba. Our government's vision is to improve the quality of life for Manitobans. The vision of the department is a safe, just and peaceful society supported by a justice system that is fair, effective, trusted and understood. In Justice, we achieve this by providing a fair and effective prosecution service. We achieve this by managing offenders in an environment that promotes public safety and rehabilitation, by providing mechanisms for timely and peaceful resolution of civil and criminal matters. We do this by providing legal advice and services to government. We provide programs which assist in protecting and enforcing individual and indeed collective rights. Another important aspect of achieving these goals is to provide support and assistance to victims of crime and of course promote effective policing and crime prevention initiatives in our communities.

There are concrete programs and changes occurring every day in our system of justice, whether these changes occur in the area of policing, of policy, courts, correctional services, crime prevention, victims' services and indeed a myriad of other programs.

I have heard comments that expenditures made in one area are somehow misconstrued as being a decision of government not to support services in other equally important areas of justice management. I think it bears repeating that the Justice portfolio has many competing areas, financially, philosophically, interest-based and constitutionally. The balance is a delicate one, and it is never possible to please all groups in society on a particular subject.

* (1440)

When there has been a horrific crime, we are all outraged about man's and, indeed in this age, woman's inhumanity to one another. Yet in the Department of Justice in our province, when such a crime occurs, we need to ensure that the rights of all people are met to ensure a fair, impartial justice system.

As Minister of Justice, I will speak out as an advocate for victims. I also am obliged to speak out for offenders to be held fully accountable for their actions. I will advocate for reform in the law when it is in the interests of the public we all serve and in the interest of public safety. In this context, it is important to remember that the primary responsibility for criminal law is of course the federal parliament. The provincial jurisdiction is limited to property and civil rights and other headings under the Constitution that have been specifically assigned to the province. So while we can make advances and achieve certain goals within the context of the province's constitutional jurisdiction, it is always important to remember that it is the federal Parliament who passes the laws and which we, as a province, indeed all provinces in Canada, have accepted the delegation of prosecuting cases under our Criminal Code.

Not all criminal statutes, of course, are prosecuted by the provincial government. That in fact is something that is always an ongoing discussion between the federal and the provincial governments. For example, the prosecution of narcotics, which is under the criminal law-making power of the federal government and the criminal law power still is prosecuted by the federal Department of Justice. We of course recognize then the need for co-operation between governments, between parliament and legislators, in order to ensure that the net, in so far as constitutionally and practically possible, is a seamless constitutional net. So we advocate for reform in terms of improving our legal system generally, whether the primary area of responsibility lies with the federal government or where the province has a jurisdiction and a role to play. At the same time, if I do not, as Minister of Justice, support a strong system to defend an accused's ability to make a full and forceful defence and do not accept the ultimate independence of the judiciary to make rulings within the law, even when I disagree with them, our society will not have one of the most basic principles which I am sure we will all acknowledge is essential to a healthy community and province.

Just in the context of ensuring that accuseds have a fair trial, I am reminded very recently of a step that the Deputy Attorney General had to take by publishing a statement. This statement was a result of activities of not only the media but indeed of the Justice critic, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), publicizing the names of people charged with criminal offences, not only the names but indeed the criminal record of people charged with criminal offences before those cases were properly dealt with in the court. Again, that would concern me very much.

So I certainly approve of the statement of the Deputy Attorney General, who states in his message: in the past months and certainly in the past several days, a number of media outlets have published the criminal record and past conduct of persons presently charged with criminal offences whose cases are now before the courts. The media have refrained from doing this in the past, a decision the courts and the law have supported on the basis that to do otherwise could improperly interfere with the trial of a person accused of an offence. It is for this reason that counsel within the Department of Justice as well as the Attorney General and the former Attorney General cannot and will not comment on any suggestion that an accused person now before the courts has previously been involved in any court proceedings. To do so would be improper and could interfere with court proceedings now underway.

I would just parenthetically note that any lawyer, of course, knows that it would be improper to do that, and so the statement here by the Deputy Attorney General, I think, serves as a very appropriate reminder.

Continuing on then, he states: the appropriate and lawful time to discuss such matters is when court proceedings are complete.

I think that for my purposes at this time, that is sufficient.

In Justice, we are focusing our efforts on making our community safer for all Manitobans. In the Department of Justice we have taken a three-pronged approach: No. 1, suppression and intervention; No.2, prevention; and thirdly, partnerships. We believe that this three-pronged approach will result in a balanced approach to respond to the many very complex issues facing our competing systems and services of justice in our province.

I would like to talk of some of the many exciting programs and services, Mr. Chairperson. I do intend on spending some time on this matter, within certainly my time allotment, to speak of the many exciting programs and services that are being offered in our province which have made it a safer place for people to live, which have contributed to a reduction in rates of crime not only in Winnipeg but in the rest of Manitoba, and indeed which I believe have contributed to an increase in the public's confidence in our system of justice.

Although I may sound optimistic–and I am. I am very pleased at the success of many of our programs. I am not as enthusiastic as the Free Press, for instance, in a recent editorial where it stated that the issue of gang violence was under control and implied that it was more or less a thing of the past. I think we have to be very vigilant to ensure that if it is indeed a thing of the past, that it remains a thing of the past. So I think that to simply say to this point in time we are successful in our programs and to neglect the challenges of the future would, in my opinion, be a serious mistake.

From the perspective of suppression and intervention, the government has taken an aggressive approach to the prosecution of individuals accused of breaking federal and provincial laws. We have put more Crown attorneys in place to carry out this important work. They are following a policy of vigorously opposing bail where there has been violence or gang-related crimes. This means that, while awaiting trial, and of course subject to judicial approval, these people are kept in jail rather than being free to live in our communities. Or, if they are granted bail by the court, the Crown attorneys do argue for appropriate conditions to restrict the actions of the accused to ensure the victim's and the public's safety is paramount.

If a court finds a person guilty of an offence, our prosecutors will make an aggressive submission at the sentencing hearings within the parameters set by law. They will speak for the victims of crime directly in their submissions to the court, and indeed they will rely on victim impact statements in appropriate cases. Again, it is very important that, as a part of our new Victims' Rights Act, there is a specific provision ensuring that victims can be heard through this particular program.

* (1450)

I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) had indicated that his preference would be to include oral victim impact statements when our legislation was last before the House, but, as he was well aware, the ability of the provincial government to adopt one of these programs is circumscribed by federal legislation. I am pleased, however, that the federal government is moving in the direction that many of us would like to see to give victims that option at their discretion to have an oral victim impact statement. As it is now, certainly courts call upon victims to speak at trial from time to time, but my understanding of the situation is that that remains within the discretion of the trial judge. I think we would like to see the emphasis shifted, as the federal proposals are, to seeing that discretion then moved towards the discretion of the victim.

Of course we would not want to make victim impact statements, either verbal or oral, compulsory. They should be available at the discretion of the victim and, of course, subject to the appropriate running of the trial. In certain cases it may not be appropriate.

All victims have a requirement to be informed about the progress of the case through the court process, and the act sets out the need for dealing respectfully and with compassion in dealings with the victim by all who work in the justice system. I think it is important to note that the overall conduct of the case on behalf of the people, on behalf of the Crown, which includes not only the victim but the accused as well, is carried by the Crown prosecutor. That prosecutor ultimately, after listening and making considerations, will be responsible for the carriage of that prosecution.

So it is very important that legislation not improperly interfere with that long-standing tradition of prosecutorial independence, and we need to respect prosecutors in the same way that we respect a doctor, a surgeon perhaps who makes a determination as to what to be done in the course of a particular operation. We do not have operations, generally speaking, by committee. We trust the professionals assigned to the task, and sometimes we, as lay people, do not necessarily understand why a doctor made a particular decision or a dentist made a particular decision or a chartered accountant made a particular decision.

In the same way, our Crown prosecutors, who I consider the finest in Canada, require a degree of professional independence that we need to respect, and so our legislation has to be framed very carefully and cannot be overly intrusive. I believe that anyone who understands the appropriate role of the Crown, appropriate role of the judge, the appropriate role of defence counsel, understands the importance of a vigorous, independent, prosecutorial authority. In this context then, we have to understand The Victims' Rights Act.

I want to say that, even though we respect the independence and professionalism of a prosecutor, we also want to hold them accountable and indeed hold each person in the justice system accountable. That is why I think our Victims' Rights Act and the dealings of victims with our professional staff require some measure of regulation. I believe our act, as new as it is, is an act that has found the appropriate balance that is giving a voice to victims and not in any way improperly intimidating the prosecutor from a vigorous prosecution.

In this context, I want to say that I was reading a newspaper article about a case in Ontario where it was noted that our Victims' Rights Act was the only act in Canada, the only act, Mr. Chairperson, that in fact has an effective complaint mechanism. No other act in Canada, it was noted, had the effective complaint mechanism that our act has. The pendulum has swung back from the early 1980s and the introduction of the Charter when there was a public perception that only the accused mattered in a trial. Now the victims, those people who have been violated, are an integral and central part of the process. I believe that the dynamic has changed. The emphasis of the right of accused, which is, of course, very important, does not unduly impair the important role of the public and the individual victim.

Mr. Chair, the police across Manitoba, whether they are municipal police forces such as the Winnipeg City Police, the Brandon City Police, Altona, Morden, Rivers, Winkler, and others, and the RCMP are recognized for their professionalism and protection of the public. Consistently, in public opinion polls, the police rank as one of the highest institutions that the people of Manitoba, indeed of Canada, respect. We believe that our government has taken appropriate steps to provide not only our general tax revenues to provide assistance to municipal police forces, our government has provided $2 million a year over and above any funding that we provide to the city of Winnipeg, to the Winnipeg Police Service in its efforts to increase the number of police on the streets to respond to the policing needs of all of our citizens.

Very recently then, of course, it was announced that the province will expand that $2-million-a-year commitment in order to provide funding in excess of $15 million for 62 police officers to be shared by the province's three largest enforcement agencies over the next five years to do things such as help fight organized criminal groups such as street gangs and outlaw bikers. The proposal, the next step in ongoing discussions with the major law enforcement agencies, includes a two-year extension through 2004 of the program to provide the $2 million and 40 officers on an annual basis. It also provides for funding for additional police in Brandon and across Manitoba with the RCMP.

* (1500)

As our Premier (Mr. Filmon) noted, the need to fight street gangs and outlaw bikers will continue to be a priority of this government as we work hard to make our communities safer.

The funding proposal which was announced was made, I should emphasize, as a result of requests made by law enforcement agencies. Specifically in that context, the programs that will benefit from the recent announcements are the Joint Forces Intelligence Unit, the Winnipeg Police Service community policing, and the ViCLAS system, the violent crime linkage analysis system. Additional officers for duties to be agreed upon through consultation will be provided following agreement between the province and the police forces.

I note that there is always a measure of consultation, a measure of interaction with municipal authorities to ensure that we are working off the same page. So, while we may not always be able to strike an agreement immediately as to how resources should be implemented, I was very pleased to see that, as a result of the request of these municipal police forces and the RCMP, we were able to address some of the specific priorities that they had identified and targeted.

During the discussions with the police community regarding how these resources will be used, we will consider how the impact of these resources may be measured. It is always important that, when we fund matters, we also periodically re-examine how specific programs are doing. While that may not occur on a regular basis with smaller-funded programs where professional organizations are entrusted with certain amounts of money, certainly in a measure of this magnitude that would call for, and indeed I know it is expected by the municipal forces that we look on a constant basis to ensure that any program is being effectively utilized and that it is of importance in the community.

I think it is important in this context to remember as well that government initiatives, government announcements, government programs go through many changes and phases and amalgamations. I think that is healthy. Government announces programs, but nothing should compel government to go down a particular path when it is demonstrated or shown that there is a better way of achieving the same result. So we have to be mindful of that particular issue.

Very relevant in that particular respect is the issue of the seizure of motor vehicles for prostitution-related activities. This was an announcement made in 1995 which identified a very important need. It did not identify particularly clearly how that need would be addressed and how the mechanism would be implemented.

So what we were able to do in a very careful, measured way, develop a program to reach the goal. The goal, I think, reflects the intent and substance of the announcement or plan in 1995, but in fact there were a number of steps that were important, intermediate steps that I think go to shore up that program and will eventually contribute to its ultimate success. I refer in that context to the development of johns and janes schools, and I understand that in respect to the janes school, the preferred term now is diversion camp. So we are clear on what we are talking about, I will utilize that term, provided I do not slip into the old term.

But again, these two camps or programs I think are very important in terms of an educational component, in terms of a community component. It was certainly embraced by community organizations across Winnipeg as being an important step, firstly, to let the customers of prostitutes know about the destruction that they were causing to their community and, secondly, with the money that johns were required to pay to attend this diversion camp or diversion school for the customers, the money was then used to fund the diversion camps, which have been very successful. Those camps are funded then by money coming from the customers of the sex-trade workers or prostitutes. The prostitutes or sex-trade workers do not have to put any money in themselves to participate in this diversion.

It was after the implementation of that aspect of the program that the actual seizure-of-motor-vehicles legislation was announced, and both aspects still run concurrently. Judging from police reports in the media and in conversations with individual officers, this has certainly been a very important and useful tool for the police forces and, I would venture to say, for community organizations generally.

The last announcement in that series was then the program announced yesterday run by the New Directions, which will seek to offer a more permanent diversion for prostitutes out of the sex trade and to provide them with more healthy choices. I do not believe that most of these prostitutes, mainly women, engage in this trade as a matter of choice. They do so for a number of reasons, including drug addictions and lives that have involved no small amount of abuse. So it was important, I think, to continue along this continuum in that direction to provide these important services.

* (1510)

Another program that I think falls in very nicely with the emphasis on partnership, not only with community organizations or police, but in fact an intermediary organization, is the auxiliary police forces. Today across rural Manitoba, serving with the RCMP which is the province's police force, there are currently 140 auxiliary police officer positions which the provincial government funds. This has been a tremendously successful and important aspect of policing in rural Manitoba.

On June 10, our government announced that other municipalities will be entitled to augment or supplement their regular police forces by having access to 150 auxiliary police positions. This would include municipal police forces such as Winnipeg, Brandon, Morden, Rivers and Winkler. In addition, we will also expand the RCMP's contingent by 100 new positions, again funded through the provincial government. These auxiliary police officers, although sworn as peace officers, will only exercise their powers when on duty with a regular police force. Again, we are very interested in working together with the various municipalities and, indeed, our own provincial police force, the RCMP, to ensure that these positions are fully utilized.

Manitoba has for years had the most aggressive policy against domestic violence in the country. We have taken this secret crime and made it a public issue that in combination with a high presence of police officers has resulted in higher crime statistics. I think it is important to note that if we did not have as an aggressive policy against domestic violence, our crime statistics, in particular our domestic violence crime statistics, of course, would be much, much lower. Our violent crime statistics generally would be much lower. I understand that of our probation orders alone in this province, of the 5,000 or so, there are approximately 2,500 which relate to domestic violence. That is a huge number.

You know, Mr. Chairperson, we could have kept this crime a secret crime, and for the sake of statistics kept our statistics down, but we think it is much better to ensure that people are safe in their homes as well as on the streets, that we pursue this particular policy. I note that other provinces that do not have this aggressive policy against domestic violence may have lower figures in terms of violence, but as Statistics Canada has noted for the first time, our higher violent crime statistics are directly attributable to the aggressive approach we take to domestic violence and the fact that this secret crime is no longer tolerated not only by citizens, but institutions of government and the courts.

I think it is important also to understand that our policy against domestic violence does not short-circuit the legal requirements necessary to bring forward an assault charge in this context. There still has to be the tests that the police officers have to meet, the Crown has to meet. What is taken out of the hands of the police officer is that once there is the appropriate legal test made that every crime investigation must meet, then discretion as to whether or not to charge the individual is taken out of the hands of the police. That is, in fact, what is known as zero tolerance. Zero tolerance does not, in my opinion, condone the laying of charges where no appropriate legal basis exists. That legal basis must exist.

There have been many enhancements that have been made to respond to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Schulman's report on the inquiry into the deaths of Rhonda and Roy Lavoie. I am pleased to advise that virtually all recommendations affecting Prosecutions, Corrections, Women's Advocacy and Court systems, where in our control, have, in fact, been acted upon.

I might note that in at least one case a particular recommendation that was recommended by Mr. Justice Schulman was rejected by the judiciary, which we certainly do not pretend to have control over in our system of independence of the judiciary. We might disagree with them, as I have indicated earlier, but we respect their decisions.

The implementation of these recommendations have been acted on, and this has required the dedication of government and community partners in approaching new ways of serving victims of domestic violence. There has been an unprecedented level of negotiation and collaboration to achieve the significant results outlined in the report of the implementation committee released last November.

In addition, the government has committed over $2 million on an annual basis to the area of domestic violence. An important aspect of this entire program is, of course, The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation Act. This act has been introduced. It has been passed. In speaking to members of my department very recently, there, of course, are regulatory development issues which are, as I understand, very close to completion, and now the extensive training that needs to take place will, in fact, take place. The act should be in place in the very near future, and we are looking forward to ensuring that this civil act, which I think incorporates some of the best aspects of other acts across Canada but I think is unique in its total approach, will be unique in its success.

Last year, I informed this committee that we had set up a Lavoie report implementation committee to monitor progress on addressing Justice Schulman's recommendations in the quickest and most efficient manner possible. I also advised this committee that the 1998-99 Estimates of Expenditure provided a total of 24 new full-time employees and $1.2 million in increased resources to implement the recommendation that fell within the purview of our department.

This issue continues to be of utmost concern and priority to the department and to the people of Manitoba. For this reason, I am pleased to announce, of course, additional supports, and these, of course, can be gone into more detail in the course of the specific Estimates. Added positions, added money to improve the delivery of programming and to increase our monitoring of domestic violence offenders is, of course, very, very important.

On April 30 of this year, it was announced that the province was funding a Family Violence Court research project. They received $23,800 to continue collecting data and information on the operations of Manitoba's Family Violence Court. The establishment of this unique court signalled Manitoba's determination to deal with the silent crime of domestic violence in a specialized court. The information being provided by the centre will help government ensure the continued successful operation of this court for the benefit of all Manitobans.

* (1520)

It is my opinion that we will build on our existing record to improve the way domestic violence is handled throughout our criminal justice system from the time charges are laid right through the prosecution process. I might point out that the Family Violence Court was established in 1991 as a part of the government's overall efforts to deal with domestic violence through the zero tolerance policy that I have previously alluded to. The court has been noted for its effective work in dealing with cases of domestic violence.

Our government, as I indicated at the beginning of my opening remarks, will intervene by advocating for changes in laws that are established by the Parliament of Canada. I spent some time at Justice ministers' meetings advocating for change. The law is not static and we must respond to the changing criminal elements in our communities.

One example of the need for change is the area of young offenders. I have taken positions forward which reflect what Manitobans have been saying. I want the law to deal firmly with respect to youth crime and especially violent youth crime, for if we can ensure that young people learn that there is no easy ride when you get involved with the justice system, then they will reconsider some of the choices that they are making.

Recently, I conducted, along with the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who was sitting as the Chair, a series of public consultations on the federal young offenders legislation. I heard from the people of Manitoba, young and old, of the need for ensuring that young criminals are dealt with in a way to ensure responsibility and accountability, but, at the same time, I also heard that we must give our young people positive alternatives to the criminal lifestyle. This is where we must speak or seek an appropriate balance, and, indeed, this was the message that I took forward to the federal Minister of Justice. I am pleased to report that I was able to meet with the federal Minister of Justice to leave a copy of our report and to speak about some of the issues that Manitobans raised with me in the context of those hearings, those hearings that were chaired by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and which I might indicate were attended and participated in by many other members from the government caucus.

Our efforts to support young people through programming have been eroded for many years by continued federal reductions of funds for creative programs. I drew this to the minister's attention in the report, and, indeed, I have drawn this to the minister's attention on other occasions, where we want to make sure that even though young criminals must be held accountable and responsible, we also need to ensure that appropriate programs are there for those who require them.

We continue to partner with community organizations. The province agreed to a plan proposed by the Salvation Army Weetamah Corps Youth Initiatives that would see Manitoba contribute $64,000 through the year 2002 to that award-winning program. I indicated at that time that our government is determined to give our young people the best chances in life to succeed. The Salvation Army had established this worthy program, offers young people alternatives to destructive lifestyles, including falling in with street gangs.

I know that there are ongoing concerns in respect of that particular program with respect to the funding. The Salvation Army and the provincial government I know are committed to working in partnership to ensure that we work together to resolve that particular issue. The issue of partnership and the success of partners have, in fact, made our community sports camps so successful, as well as other urban safety initiatives such as the Kildonan Youth Activity Centre, the Salvation Army Kid Zones and other programs, again, very important that we continue to partner with these programs.

Another program that I know members of the House are very interested in and which Manitoba is taking a lead role in is the Citizens on Patrol program. I know that throughout the province and the city this is an example time and again of how groups of volunteers can provide support to local police forces by being present and watching for signals of crime.

The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) I know has, in his constituency at least, people who are interested in that, not only in respect of the COP program but other programs. I know that both the member and myself are very interested in ensuring that we can support not only Citizens on Patrol programs in our own areas of the city where we live but throughout the province.

The initial concern that I had was not that these programs were not successful in rural areas. They were very successful. What concerned me is how do we transfer that successful program into the city from the rural areas of Manitoba. My concerns I think were not warranted. To date, they have been tremendously successful in lowering the requirement for direct police assistance in areas of the city. I know, for that reason alone, not only members in the government caucus but also opposition members have been enthusiastic supporters of this particular program, and the government of Manitoba is certainly pleased to support appropriate programming.

* (1530)

By and large, these Citizens on Patrol programs have been successful, certainly in the rural areas have been found to be responsible for reductions of up to 70 percent in criminal activities in some communities. In speaking to police forces in the city of Winnipeg, as well, we know that they are making a tremendous difference in our core areas and other parts of the city. For example, in the Charleswood constituency, which a member of the government caucus holds that constituency, has a COPs program. I believe it is called the Westdale Residents Association or that is the association that runs the COPs program. I have had occasion to meet some of the members on a number of occasions, and I know that while the program is not without its challenges, these programs always are with some degree of challenge, they in fact have been doing an excellent job in their particular part of Charleswood.

Our citizens are saying to us: It is our community, let us do the job of making it a great place to live. They are not asking government to pay for their time. They are saying that what they are doing is a necessary part of being a member of a community. Over 30 such programs are in place. I think my notes here might be a little out of date, because I believe that it is far in excess of 30 programs now, but a great number of programs are in place. With some financial support from the provincial government for some basic equipment, the volunteers are able to do their best to support crime prevention activities of the police.

There are other strategies that we have announced. I know that during the course of Estimates, I will be spending a great deal of time in talking about these strategies and ensuring that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has all of this relevant information, not only the financial aspects but the philosophical underpinnings and the administrative requirements of these particular programs, so that we can continue to develop through discussion and debate what is the most appropriate way of dealing with this program.

In this context, the program that we announced that we will be seizing motor vehicles from drunk drivers is in fact a very important step in a very successful program that has spanned approximately 10 years. There are a number of aspects to this program that I want to deal with. Not all of it deals with provincial legislation, but in fact much of it deals with policy and strategy in the context of our criminal courts.

There are a number of other matters that I would like to touch on. I know that my time is limited but perhaps a final note at this time, that is, the announcement that our province recently made in assisting the establishment of a national DNA data bank. On June 9 of this year, our government announced that Manitoba would help cover the cost of a DNA biology casework analysis system.

The province has agreed to share this cost in support of the establishment of a national DNA data bank in order to assist police to investigate crimes and help cases progress quicker through the courts. Again, this is in emphasis of ensuring that technology keeps pace with the demands that law enforcement officials find themselves facing. Once established, this data bank will contain DNA profiles of convicted offenders and crime scene indexes indefinitely forming a valuable resource for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. Indeed, in certain classes of offences under the Young Offenders Act, DNA profiles entered into the data bank will be taken out at prescribed time frames.

The DNA data bank will be primarily funded, controlled and maintained by the RCMP in Ottawa, but we have agreed to cover $1 million or 55 percent of the cost of the biology casework originating in Manitoba in the third year of the agreement.

So, Mr. Chair, that gives you perhaps a summary of some of the matters that we are looking at. Indeed, I look forward to continuing some of this discussion in response to questions.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for St. Johns, have an opening statement? [interjection]

In practice, debate of the minister's salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department, and accordingly we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed to the consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we would invite the minister's staff to join us at the table. We would ask that the minister introduce the staff present at the table when they are here with us at the table.

Mr. Toews: I have with me Mr. Bruce MacFarlane, who is the deputy minister. I have with me Mr. Ron Perozzo, the associate deputy minister, and the responsibility is essentially for the Public Safety area. Criminal Justice Division is the formal title. Mr. Pat Sinnott is the executive director of Courts; and Mr. Rob Finlayson, the assistant deputy minister generally responsible for Prosecutions.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $470,600 on page 107.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): A preliminary matter, further to the retaining of Mr. Leonard Doust for an outside review as to whether there is basis for further investigation or prosecution following on the Monnin report. Can the minister tell us when Mr. Doust's report is expected? In other words, has he heard lately on any update on that?

Mr. Toews: As you are aware, as a result of the report coming down from the former chief justice, the honourable Justice Monnin, as a result of that particular report, the deputy minister undertook certain reviews and made a decision in respect of retaining Mr. Doust. Mr. Doust was given a mandate that I believe has been circulated publicly. I am just trying to recall, but I believe that I, in fact, tabled that in the House. If not, I could do so. If the member does not have that particular announcement, I could also make that available. That, in fact, outlines the terms of reference, indeed the time frame. We are expecting the report to come down on or before June 30 of this year, so very shortly. We have not yet heard from Mr. Doust, so I am not aware of whether or not he will make that time limit of June 30, but any conversations in that regard or discussions will be done through the office of the deputy minister.

* (1540)

Mr. Mackintosh: Specifically, can the minister confirm whether there has been any extension requested by Mr. Doust?

Mr. Toews: I can advise the member for St. Johns that at this time no request has been requested and none has been granted.

Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps the minister can help me, is his name pronounced Dow or Doust?

Mr. Toews: I guess for the record it is going to be difficult, but it is Doust, That is with a "t" at the end, so the "t" is actually pronounced. Doust.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just a question that follows on this, I know the deputy minister had travelled to Vancouver to meet with Mr. Doust. I am just wondering what the purpose of the travel was and what the nature of the discussions was when the two got together in British Columbia.

Mr. Toews: Just for clarification here because this is an extremely sensitive area, I have not sought advice nor given direction to the deputy minister on this matter. I do not want to be conveying instructions or positions that might in some way suggest that I have been advising or directing the deputy in this matter. This is an independent function of the prosecutor's office. What I certainly would be willing to do is to have the deputy prepare for me a report for presentation here at committee, and then I would want to table that report so that there is no misunderstanding in that respect.

Mr. Mackintosh: I would appreciate that because I simply seek information. I guess essentially from the deputy minister through the minister is the line of communication that we have. I am just wondering if at the same time there could be a clarification as to what were the matters of contention between the deputy and Mr. Doust in respect of the terms of reference for Mr. Doust.

Mr. Toews: Just in that respect, I think it is better that the deputy refresh his memory in that respect and ensure that all appropriate facts are brought forward. I do not believe he was prepared to deal with that aspect of this issue right now. So I think in fairness we will defer that issue until the deputy produces the report for the committee. I think that can be done in a very quick way, and then if any questions arise out of that, I think we could use that document as a guide. I understand from speaking to the deputy that every request that was made by Mr. Doust was, in fact, granted by the deputy.

Mr. Mackintosh: There are five working days left before the deadline for Mr. Doust's report to be received. Will the minister commit to making public the report from Mr. Doust on the day that it is received from him?

Mr. Toews: If this were a regular government report that simply involved the finding of a public body such as the Chief Justice in respect of the entire inquiry that he conducted, I would have no difficulty in making that type of commitment. However, because this particular investigation and inquiry relates to an exploration of whether or not there was criminal activity that should be pursued, it must be treated in the same way that any criminal investigation needs to be treated.

So I cannot make that commitment, but I understand that the issue of release and the extent to which matters should properly be released remains in the control of Mr. Doust. That is the way it appropriately should be.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister, I am sure, has analyzed this to the extent of realizing that he has a discretion whether to release Mr. Doust's report or not, that he remains seized, if you will, of that responsibility. I wonder if he has already made a determination as to whether the report will be made public or not.

Mr. Toews: Well, in fact, it is not a matter I am seized of nor a matter that I should properly be seized of. This is, in fact, a matter for the independent counsel that was appointed to make that determination. One can only understand why that, in fact, should be. I think, if I am not mistaken–that is why I should have those terms of reference before me–I believe that it was specifically set out in the terms of reference that Mr. Doust would have that jurisdiction, and I might say that is a practice that I think any counsel in that type of position would always do. It is not something for the Minister of Justice and even the Attorney General in that role to be doing unless there is some overriding reason that would require that.

The concern that my direction in that respect gives is, of course, any future processes that might flow from that report. If it is seen that I have had even an indirect involvement in that particular process including the determination of what should be released, if anything, I think could give rise to some concerns. I do not want to in any way impose myself into that decision-making process.

* (1550)

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister at least commit to making public on the day he receives the report, and if he is not going to release the report publicly, the main findings or the essence of the report and recommendations of Mr. Doust?

Mr. Toews: Again, as the independent counsel, Mr. Doust retains the responsibility for doing that.

What I would like to be able to do, and I would certainly make this request of the deputy, is that if Mr. Doust requests any type of an extension, that I would be allowed to at least state that in the House or publicly in some way, because there is a public expectation because of the terms of reference that the report would be completed by June 30. So if June 30 comes and goes and nothing has happened, I think it would incumbent upon me simply to ask the deputy what has happened and, to the extent possible, can you explain why this has happened. If the report comes in, the extent to which I can disclose the contents of the report is again within the mandate of Mr. Doust.

Again, I would like to be able to at least say when that report comes into my possession, that at an appropriate time, and I would see a very short time following that, to be able to announce that in the House so that at least the public of Manitoba is aware that that particular report is in my receipt or in the receipt of the deputy. I am not exactly sure where that report is going. [interjection]

I just indicate that the report, in fact, is going to the deputy, just to clarify that, and the extent to which it would even be shared with me is a matter for Mr. Doust to be determining. But if Mr. Doust indicates that the report is to go to me, certainly I would want to be able to say to the public of Manitoba it is now in my receipt. But the first person to receive that report would be the deputy minister, and I am sure that there will be perhaps a number of discussions related to release of that report, the extent to which it can be released, between the deputy and Mr. Doust even before I am aware that that document is in the possession of the deputy.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have a series of questions, expectedly, on the gang hotline. Some of them I think the minister is well positioned to answer now. There may be some others that he will want to confer with the staff of the Public Safety division on. I do not know, because I do not know what their role is.

I begin with perhaps a historical question. I am just wondering if the minister is aware as to whether any directions, either orally or in writing, have been provided with respect to the operation of the gang hotline since its institution in June of '94.

Mr. Toews: I understand that when the line was initially set up, there was some exchange of documentation, but I do not have any of that in my possession. I am not prepared to answer those questions at this time. I think we should defer those until the appropriate staff members are here.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, could the minister commit to providing me a copy of those documents so that we can look at those and review them before we get to that line on the Estimates?

Mr. Toews: I use the term "documents" in the plural because I am not aware of the extent of the documents and to the extent that they are available. So I will review that with staff and determine what is appropriate to release.

Mr. Mackintosh: With the briefing note that we understand the minister had received from staff and which had indicated calls that I made to the gang hotline, what were the total number of calls that were indicated, not just from myself, but how many calls had been made to the gang line? I understand the period of time goes back to late 1998.

Mr. Toews: Well, I will see what numbers are available on that. For some reason I believe that there were eight calls made. After the member authorized the specific release of the specific calls, the deputy provided me with that particular information. That is not a list that I want to review myself. So there were, as I understand, seven calls that were made by the member, and I provided those to members of his staff. The only other suggestion that I can make in respect of the eighth was the call that the member referenced in the House that his intern had made. So I believe it is eight, but I do not know whether that is set out in any of the briefing notes that I have directly seen.

Mr. Mackintosh: When did the minister become aware of problems of delay in retrieving messages from the voice mail of the gang hotline?

Mr. Toews: All I can indicate at this time is that I know that I had a number of meetings with staff in respect of the Estimates process, so certain issues were raised with me during the course of those Estimates briefings. As for an exact date, I do not have that. I will try to make that determination and see what I can discover.

* (1600)

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to interrupt these proceedings of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. As agreed in the House, at 4 p.m., we would move into the Department of Family Services. I would ask the Minister of Family Services and the critic and staff of Family Services to please come forward to continue with the Estimates of the Department of Family Services.