* (2000)

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Would 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 4.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): When we left for the supper break, we were talking about the Family Violence Court and we were pursuing a number of questions regarding whether there was in fact a Family Violence Court in Brandon or not. We were talking about the role of the Crown attorneys.

I wondered if there are particular judges who are assigned to dealing with family violence cases in Brandon.

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Chair, I am told that one judge in the Brandon area has been designated as the lead in the Family Violence Court, though I am told that the three judges, be your cases in Brandon, are all seen by members of the legal community and by those who participate in the Family Violence Court as being very interested and certainly willing, to my understanding, and happy to be there.

Mr. Mackintosh: What judge is so-called lead?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, Associate Chief Judge Giesbrecht is seen as the lead judge.

Mr. Mackintosh: Are family violence cases for all of Westman dealt with in the Brandon court?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the cases are primarily ones which are brought forward by the Brandon Police Service, although the Women's Advocacy Program worker has been making contact with police services outside of the city of Brandon, and we will expect to see some of those cases coming to the Domestic Violence Court in the Brandon area.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister can advise when the domestic violence day, as she calls it, takes place? In other words, is there a particular day of the week, or are there a certain number of days in a month? Can she somehow describe how often those days are scheduled?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the Domestic Violence Court docket is usually scheduled approximately twice monthly in the Brandon Court area. There are not preset days. It does depend, as was recommended in the committee which recommended it being set up, that there was to be--obviously, we had to look at population and caseload. Caseload is usually two to three cases, and as I said, usually the hearing is about twice monthly.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if my understanding is correct, that the Family Violence Court Implementation Committee is the organization that recommended how the Brandon unit should be established?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, it was the Family Violence Court Implementation Committee, but for the Brandon area.

Mr. Mackintosh: So I take it then the composition of the committee was different with regard to the Brandon implementation?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes it was different from the Winnipeg committee, different people who sat on that, but it also was somewhat different in its make-up, as well, in terms of who was represented on the committee. I am told that there was a representative from the defence bar, not the individual named in the research that the member did from the defence bar who said, yes, there was a court, this was another person, and also representatives from the women's shelter. I believe it was a representative from the women's shelter in the Brandon area.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there any fast-tracking of family violence cases in Brandon?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that the in-custody cases can be seen within three weeks and the out-of-custody cases within four to six weeks.

Mr. Mackintosh: Without being familiar with the turnaround time in the Brandon courts, I just want to know whether domestic violence cases are fast-tracked in comparison to other types of offences.

* (2010)

Mrs. Vodrey: They are given a very high priority. I am not sure if that answers the member's question about where they are seen in relation to other cases, but I am told and can confirm from the information I hear this evening that, yes, they are given a high priority. The time frame I have already provided to the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister said that the Family Violence unit in Winnipeg was not really used as the model for Brandon, and she referred to the discreteness that had to be recognized. I am wondering if she could just elaborate on what she meant by discreteness.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I am happy to do that. I was referring to the distinctiveness of the area. It is a discrete geographical area, and there is a population to be considered, and that would,of course, be important in the setting of the dockets.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there any pamphlet produced telling people about the Family Violence unit in Brandon?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that there is no advertising per se, but the Women's Advocacy Program worker receives a list of the victims from the Brandon police service or police services which are co-operating. She writes to each of the victims and advises the victims of the court and, I am told, has a personal contact with approximately 75 percent of those victims.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has there been any analysis of the workings of this Family Violence unit in the Brandon court?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, no, there has not been a formal outside analysis of the Brandon family court. However, I am told that the quick rate of cases progressing through the court is one way to look at its efficiency. I am told by people who are very familiar with the court that participants have expressed satisfaction about its operation, and there have been few challenges to the decisions which have been brought down in that court.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the department has any documentation at all regarding the Family Violence Court procedures, an outline how it works, an estimation of the staff years appropriated to it.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member is asking if there is a specific document that outlines how the system works. There is not as of this time.

One of the reasons that there is not a formal document outlining exactly when the court sits and a great deal of detail about it for the public is that, I understand from the implementation committee that the community itself expressed some concerns about a great deal of publicity and formal information, because when someone was seen going to the courthouse on a certain day or at a certain time then members of a smaller community might be able to identify that person as a victim or make assumptions about what was happening in that person's life. There was some concern that within a community of this size and with the number of cases there not be something which really spoke about the court very widely and in a great deal of detail.

I see the member looks somewhat concerned about that. That came from, as I am told, the implementation committee, who were dealing with the fact that this was a distinct geographical population area and obviously knew their community. That was accepted.

Now if the member is wanting to make a suggestion that something be put forward, I am happy to hear about that, but in his suggestion I would ask him to consider what members of the community have indicated themselves.

Mr. Mackintosh: My only comment is that whatever works best then fine, but from talking to concerned women in Brandon and given their lack of knowledge of such a court, I think it would be worthwhile for the women in particular of Brandon to know that a specialized, prioritized service is available in the community.

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

It may be that the number of victims who come forward will increase because they will have more confidence in the judicial system in dealing with their challenges and their tragedies.

So that is my concern, but I will consider the comments of the minister. I mean, I am not sure if you can call this a family violence court or not really? I mean, it is a strange breed of cat. I certainly support the view that you do not just take what is in Winnipeg and dump it on another population with different characteristics and different needs. I will reserve judgment on what I think about this, but I certainly would encourage the minister to do some review of the Family Violence Court or whatever it is in Brandon so that there will be some objective analysis as is being done in Winnipeg by Jane Ursel.

* (2020)

Quite frankly, I think the minister was as surprised as I was about the Family Violence Court in Brandon. I was just wondering though if the minister would comment as to whether the department has any plans to implement family violence units in other population centres in Manitoba as recommended by Pedlar?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member obviously is confused. Certainly I was well aware of and well aware of fully understanding how this court operates in Brandon. The confusion seems to be his. The confusion is his in being unable to understand anything that operates differently from his own experience in the city of Winnipeg.

He is a person who lives in the city of Winnipeg; his experience is the city of Winnipeg, and he has obviously had a great deal of trouble in our discussion getting his mind around the fact that a Family Violence Court operates in Brandon that operates according to the wishes and the system which is in place in the city of Brandon and according to the needs identified by the people of Brandon.

The hurdle in the understanding that such a court exists appears to be his and not mine, so I would like to make sure on the record that the difficulty in comprehension belongs to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and that the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has been able to explain I hope to his satisfaction in this Estimates process how things are working.

He asks if there is any effort to expand this court further. I am happy to bring him up to date. The Director of Regional Prosecutions has written to our Crown attorneys in 1995, this year, and has asked that our Crown attorneys in various areas of the province sit down with a group of individuals who would work in such a court, the judges and the defence bar. He has now most recently written a follow-up letter to the information which has come back.

There is consideration by people who live in these various communities to look at setting up of Domestic Violence Courts in the areas of Thompson, The Pas, Portage la Prairie and Dauphin, so this is under consideration at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just to respond to the minister's comments and just so her staff know full well where I am coming from, I rely for information on the minister's own report, the annual report. It says in there, and I quote: Based on the model of the Family Violence unit in Winnipeg, a Family Violence Court has been established in Brandon.

The information I have is that given by the minister's own department. Second of all, the minister knows full well that in Question Period last week I asked her twice if there was or was not a Family Violence Court in Brandon, to which she did not answer, which I take to be that she did not know. Otherwise I know, from other occasions in this House, she is more than happy to share her information with Manitobans.

I just want to move onto another issue--

Mrs. Vodrey: I just think it is important to have the opportunity to reply while we are on this question. Yes, I am pleased that our annual report does say based on the model. It does not say exactly the same as the model, it says based on the model. Crown attorneys who are trained, judges who are participating, a day set aside to deal with those cases, and that is exactly what happened. But in fact it even dealt very much with its own area including people from the women's shelters who were on their implementation committee and members of the defence bar.

Mr. Acting Chair, let the member's misunderstanding be now corrected, exactly what was intended in that annual report, very literal and understanding and reading of the annual report by the member. I am very pleased to have had the time to provide him with the additional information so that now he understands the functioning and how we arrived at it.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister telling the committee that she indeed was aware of a Family Violence unit in Brandon before the question was posed in Question Period?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, let me just tell the member that obviously as Minister of Justice I do spend a great deal of time reviewing the work that is being done by all divisions of the Department of Justice and in the answer to that question made it clear to him exactly what was done with all our Crown attorneys, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Mackintosh: The Pedlar report also recommended that consideration be given to establishing a Family Violence unit in the Court of Queen's Bench, at least in Winnipeg. As we note from the information provided by the minister today in writing, there is no tracking of the number of Family Violence cases heard in that court.

Based on that information and the questions from last go-round in Estimates on this issue, is the minister aware of any discussions ongoing to establish a Family Violence unit in Queen's Bench?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that at the moment, though I understand that the Pedlar report asked that some consideration be given to a Family Violence unit in the Queen's Bench Court, volume does not really warrant moving ahead with such a unit at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister talks about volume, and yet in her answer to my question as to the number of domestic violence prosecutions in Court of Queen's Bench, she states that no statistics have been kept.

What is the volume? Does she or does she not know what the volume is?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am told that a recent research paper has indicated that 95 percent of criminal cases in Manitoba are heard in the Provincial Court. So when the member asks about the statistics, that is one which we are relying on.

* (2030)

Mr. Mackintosh: In a media release in January of this year, our caucus pressed the government and made representations that the province should move bail hearings regarding family violence to the Family Violence Court. I am wondering if the minister has a response to that suggestion for the more effective and sensitive processing of bail applications?

I will explain that position. It has been my sense that we are seeing cases where an abuser is let go on conditions that have just been broken far too often, particularly conditions that seek to prevent violence. It is my thinking that if the Family Violence Court can hear these bail applications, rather than being heard in the usual course with other kinds of charges, that we will have a more responsive justice system. I am wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, the Criminal Code requires that the bail hearings occur within 24 hours. We are dealing with a compressed amount of time in which to make sure that this and all other cases are heard within the time frame which is required.

I think the member is also assuming that only the judges and only the Crown attorneys in the Domestic Violence Court are trained in that area or have received any additional supports and information. That is just not right. All of our Crown attorneys have received some training in the area of domestic violence, and the judiciary also--that is my understanding.

When we hold the bail hearings not in a specific Family Violence Court, we are still having Crown attorneys and judges deal with them who are also experienced in the area of family violence. The law is the same on release.

Is the member suggesting that people are released now and perhaps would not be released in a different kind of court? I am having trouble understanding exactly what he is asking. When we have a system, which, I said, requires bail hearings within 24 hours, those hearings are conducted by people who have had training in the area of family violence. Is he suggesting something is happening through this release procedure now which is unlawful or which should not be happening?

Mr. Mackintosh: I think the whole argument and the whole rationale for Family Violence Court is there are to be different, more-specialized Crowns and judges. That is the whole argument. The minister has just turned it around saying, oh, everything is just pretty well the same. That is just not the case.

Yes, I think there would be a different outcome. I do not think we are getting an outcome that is good enough for the women of this province. I think we are seeing people that are being released who are very violent, who have records. I can bring cases to the minister. I think more importantly, though, we are seeing people who are being rereleased on the conditions that they have just broken and using violence while on bail. Yes, I think there would be a difference, just as I believe the minister's predecessor believed that there would be a difference with the Family Violence Court in disposing of the charges at the trial.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am still having trouble understanding if the member thinks then that the judiciary is releasing now people who should not be released. With his nodding, my understanding is then that his issue is with the judiciary making releases which he believes would not be made in the Family Violence Court.

Our position is that, if we want to have those changes, then we need tougher bail laws. That has been a position that I have taken in the past around several different issues. The first one has been in the area of antistalking. The member has indicated kind of via others that he has been supportive. I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, I have never had a firm statement by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) or any member of the NDP party on where they stand on tougher bail laws in the area of antistalking.

In looking at changes in the bail laws, I began with something very, very specific. I think it was a very specific issue which I think that the federal government, the Parliament of Canada is pressed to make some changes in now, particularly in favour of looking at the victim. Whether or not we are able to press the federal government to make wider changes than that in the area of domestic assaults, for instance, because that has been the follow-up question all the time, I do not know whether the federal government would do that. I would be very interested in seeing them make further changes. I am pressing them to do that. I pressed them in March of '94. I pressed again in June of '94. I pressed again in January of '95. I have written letters in the meantime and just continue to ask the federal government to look at consideration for bail, particularly in the area of criminal harassment.

As I said, I have been asked if I would be willing to expand that position to domestic violence. Yes, I have said I am interested. I would be willing to look at it. Right now I need the co-operation of the federal government. I have started with something very specific, and so far I have had no co-operation from the federal government at all. In fact, from the federal Minister of Justice--and the member for St. Johns, I am sure, would be interested to know this, the federal Minister of Justice just said plain no. He said this was just too much work for lawyers, and he was not prepared to make this change. That was horrifying to the women who heard that.

I came back to Manitoba when the federal minister gave me that information, had a meeting with the heads of the women's shelters and other women's groups, because I thought that they should know the position of the federal Minister of Justice and that it was simply too much work to make a change in that area.

I do not support the federal minister. I continue to press for changes. Perhaps this is the way that we can achieve, if we both work together. Maybe this is the indication the member for St. Johns is trying to give me today through the Estimates process. I do not know. Perhaps he will say so very specifically that the changes in the bail laws are the way to go.

In terms of our court system, however, I would like to reassure him that all of our Crowns have had training, been instructed about positions to take. As the member knows, it is the judiciary who determines the release, and they do so according to the laws. If he is supportive along with this government that those laws need to be tougher, I would really be happy to hear from him today, and then we can perhaps move from there.

* (2040)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister too often uses as a scapegoat either judiciary in Manitoba or the federal minister. I want to get to each of those, because I think many of the problems, not all of them, but many of the challenges that are facing Manitoba women in particular in the legal system are challenges that can be met by this government and dealt with.

The very foundation of the Family Violence Court is a good one, and that rationale should be used to extend the jurisdiction of that court not only outside of Winnipeg but extending it to the Queen's Bench or bringing in bail hearings to the Family Violence Court. As well, there are other initiatives the provincial government can take and particularly getting rid of the backlogs and getting down to a three-month turnaround for those cases in Family Violence Court as was initially the objective of that court.

Now, when it comes to the federal minister, I hate to disappoint the minister by taking away one of her favourite arguments that we have never been supportive of her on the changes to the antistalking law, because she has never asked us. But it has been a useful tool for the minister. The position of this side of the House has been consistent. We have said that it is not enough for this minister to go talking about changes to the Criminal Code only dealing with antistalking. We also want to see similar-type changes dealing with all domestic violence and violence-against-women charges.

She made the argument about the reverse onus. We have generally supported that, although we recognize that there will be a delicate balance required between the Charter of Rights, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the rights of victims to safety. We think though that in particular circumstances, albeit narrow, the reverse onus provision could be upheld where there is a clear indication of ongoing, not just pursuit of or stalking or criminal harassment of, but assault of a woman.

It may be more effective though if the Criminal Code was amended so that the overriding consideration on a bail application was not whether the accused would show up for trial but whether public safety would be threatened if the accused was released, because I think too often the judges are paying too much attention--and this is supported in case law--to the test as to whether an accused will come to trial rather than public safety. So I would support the minister on any such changes. We have all along, and have ever since she began talking on this, but we have said that it is too narrow to restrict it only to the antistalking regime.

Finally, with regard to the judiciary I think that they are largely the subject of the Criminal Code, but also the directives to the Crown can make a difference in the court, and I want to be convinced that the directives to the Crown in this province are very clear and are tough. I will be reviewing the information that the minister has given me today regarding the directives to the Crown attorneys in Manitoba, particularly regarding family violence.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, just a couple of comments before we carry on with this discussion and move on into another. First of all, the judiciary has to work within the law, so I would just like to make that point again, but the member then says, well, what can this government do? You know you cannot rely on, you cannot always look to somebody else, the federal government or the judiciary or someone where you cannot necessarily act yourself, so what has this government done, what can this government do?

Well, let me remind him, it was this government that set up the Family Violence Court. Now perhaps that small factor has escaped him in our discussion, but it was this government that set up the Family Violence Court.

We have, in fact, set up a model which other provinces across this country are very interested in and come to look at and come to see and look to see if they can make an adaptation of a court of this type. So this government's commitment in the area of Family Violence and how to deal with it in a sensitive way, how to make sure that it receives the important treatment that it requires, has been translated into action by this government.

We do have a Family Violence Court, with specialized Crown attorneys, with a judiciary who is interested and trained, and that has extended to training Crown attorneys across this province. So, whenever there is a question in his mind about how this government deals with the family violence issues, just let him remember that it was this government who set up the court, and that is a big step. It was an important one, and one that this government is very proud and happy to have done because it has said that these issues require special treatment.

In the area of the federal government and his position in support of our government's position for reverse onus in the area of antistalking, he said the reason I had not heard from him was that I had not asked. My answer is that it has not stopped him before.

I wonder if this was really such an important issue to the member for St. Johns, to the people of the NDP party. Why? We did not ever hear from them. What was it, or who was it, that was the gatekeeper that said, nobody can say anything until the Minister of Justice asks, are you supportive?

If in fact he is supportive and his party is supportive, then, boy, it would have been really wonderful to have heard that from him, to have had a definitive statement from the other side in the area of support of reverse onus in the area of antistalking. I am very glad to hear it now. I am sure the people of Manitoba are very happy to hear it now, and I hope that it will be useful to us as we approach the federal government and ask them to make changes.

He says he would start bigger. Well, I have made it clear. The public safety of women is a very important matter for me as minister and for this government. However, we have begun in an area where we believe that we should be able to cause the federal government to move, and we have not had any movement there.

At this point I will continue to press the federal government on behalf of the people of Manitoba to move into a reverse onus, and I hope that my communication with the federal minister will encourage him to see that this is not necessarily more work for lawyers. In fact I often wonder if he misspoke himself at that meeting and if he really had intended to say something differently? I do not know, but I will continue to press him, and we would look for changes.

This government is very pleased at the support of the NDP party. I am sure the women of Manitoba also are very supportive now that they have come forward and said that they will support this.

The other area that this government has moved in, in the area of protection for women, is the court order prohibition system. The courts prohibition system was implemented by July 1st, 1993, and the system allowed the Winnipeg police, the RCMP, the Brandon police, the DOTC as it was, the Dakota-Ojibway Police service as it is now, the Crown, firearms control and women's advocacy to access the registry on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis. The system became a priority to provide increased enforcement of stalking violators. So that is another action that this government has taken in an effort to protect the women of Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the government taking any initiatives, whether through the Crowns or through legislation, to require the surrender of firearms and FACs once abusers are charged?

* (2050)

Mrs. Vodrey: Within the province of Manitoba, instructions have gone out to all Crown attorneys on bail hearings on all cases of spousal abuse charges or domestic violence charges that they seek an order for the forfeiture of the FAC and firearms. Now whether or not the judge agrees to that we do not always know or we cannot guarantee, but that is our position.

The position I also took to the federal minister in changes that I had asked him to make in the area of criminal harassment was that it be required within the Criminal Code that there be a forfeiture of the FAC and firearms on charging. The federal minister has not agreed to go that far.

In the new federal bill, Bill C-68, I understand that he has said that on charging that there may be a case brought before the judge, and a judge will determine if in fact there should be a surrender of the firearms. If the firearms are not surrendered, the judge should give written reasons.

Our concern is that that simply does not go far enough. It puts an intermediary step in. It is a movement in the right direction by the federal government, but in fact it simply does not go far enough to require the surrender.

When I spoke before the parliamentary committee of Bill C-68, I made that point to them that Manitoba had requested a much stronger position, and certainly with the instructions to our Crowns that is what we seek.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am certainly disappointed in the response of the federal minister on this issue, but I am wondering why the minister does not introduce legislation to require the surrender of firearms on not just a stalking charge but on an abuse charge.

Again the minister is hearing support for some of her positions on antistalking and, indeed, perhaps all the positions that she took. I said that is not good enough; it is not far enough.

Why talk about stalking? You should be talking about abuse where there was actual violence used. With that, I wonder if the minister could answer that question.

Mrs. Vodrey: The member asked why we do not legislate in that area, but I know he understands that we do not have the ability to legislate in that area. It is incidental to criminal law. We are not able to provide that legislation.

However, I certainly understand the point that he is trying to bring forward today in terms of any cases where there has been violence and that it would be helpful to have the surrender of firearms. I have started, as I explained earlier, in the area of antistalking because it was an area where I believe the federal government may have some interest in starting to make those changes. Rather than encouraging them holistically or pushing on a broader basis, I chose a very specific point in an effort to begin to get some co-operation. And with his support tonight, who knows? Maybe the federal minister will be more responsive to the people of Manitoba and to the people of Canada because that is, in fact, whom we are speaking for.

This issue has been raised again at the Ministers of Justice conference, at the Ministers responsible for the Status of Women conference, and I think we just have to continue to press our colleagues in other provinces where we may find support for this so that every time there is a ministerial meeting with the federal minister, it is a large group of provinces that are bringing forward these initiatives and are encouraging the federal government to begin to make these changes.

Mr. Mackintosh: I recognize the jurisdictional difficulties of requiring the surrendering of firearms on abusers being charged, but I am wondering if the minister has a legal opinion as to whether there is not some mechanism for pursuing that.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I understand the point the member is making. We believe that really the most effective way would be to deal with those people who can put such a system in place nationally. We will continue to press for it.

I am very happy with his support of our position this evening. Let us see if perhaps he can speak to colleagues in other provinces who may also be sympathetic to his position. I suppose we will know more after Thursday if there will be other provinces in that group. Certainly, I will continue to press my colleagues also.

Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps this is a good time just to canvass other firearms issues.

As the minister will recall, approximately over a year ago, our caucus introduced ideas for better dealing with pellet guns in Manitoba. Particularly in Winnipeg there has been an outbreak of pellet gun incidents over the last two, two and a half years. I know the minister shared those concerns. I just know that through an article in one of the local dailies.

We, on this side, undertook extensive research of legislation across Canada, and Legislative Counsel is looking at the issue. Indeed, a bill was put on the notice paper. As well, I understand at that same time the minister indicated to the media that her department was looking at the issue and would research it.

When the federal Justice minister introduced changes to the Criminal Code regarding gun control, he indicated that he was also beginning a process of looking at bringing more air guns or pellet guns into the Criminal Code for regulation. It was my understanding that he would deal with that once the current package had been dealt with, maybe because it was sort of one thing at a time. I do not know. Perhaps he wanted further study on it and felt it was not as important to deal with quickly.

I am wondering if the minister, first of all, could outline what her department found as to the ability of the province to better regulate air guns and if she is aware of what action the federal minister is taking at this time.

* (2100)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I did say that we were very interested in looking at what we could do as a province in the area of pellet guns. I know that we have certainly done some work on it, but it is the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) whose Estimates will follow Justice whom I believe can give the member a much more complete plan of what is outlined. I want to be careful not to speak on behalf of another minister in an area where I believe they are looking at concentrating some effort.

In terms of the federal minister, I raised this issue very specifically with the federal minister when I first met with him in a private meeting in February 1994 and let him know we, in Manitoba, were concerned. I was happy to know that he did seem to have some understanding of some incidents that had taken place and seemed as if he was prepared and interested to look at some changes that were within his jurisdiction.

I do not have anything definitive to give the member back from the federal minister at this point. It is certainly an issue that I am prepared to continue raising with him. However, I also look for the member to raise the issue, as I said, with my colleague the Minister of Urban Affairs who will, I believe, indicate to him some of the information that has come forward and some of the action possible for us as a provincial government.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am sensitive to a jurisdictional challenge for province-wide legislation, although by-law legislation in other parts of Canada is still on the books without challenge to my knowledge. It may be that local by-laws are the way to deal with this issue outside of the Criminal Code, but I remain convinced that Criminal Code amendments are the proper way to deal with this. I trust the federal minister will pursue this. I would urge the minister, when she next has an opportunity, to find out from the minister what his plans are, and I myself will undertake to try and determine that from this side.

I read with interest the minister's submission to the federal committee on the federal gun control plans--by the way disappointed that her office refused to provide us with a copy of those remarks which were prepared well in advance of her trip to Ottawa, and our intern was told to just get it from Ottawa. I think that kind of response to the official opposition's request is very unfortunate and I think reflects poorly on her department.

So we made arrangements through--

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member has made an allegation about statements made from my office about my presentation in Ottawa, and I am very surprised to hear them. Perhaps he may be referring to my specific comments before the parliamentary committee, some of which were not scripted, and, in fact, were comments which I made in response to the situation and to information that I had.

If he has something further, I hope that he will tell me--he does not have to tell me right here--but I hope he will take a moment to tell me afterwards what it is that was requested and how it was he did not receive it, because the position I took forward really was a position on behalf of the people of Manitoba. So I am surprised to hear the comments made and if he would like to speak to me about that privately since it may concern some staff, I will be more than happy to look into it.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The Chair rules that the honourable minister does not have a point of order at this time. This is a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: So we made inquiries through the committee in Ottawa and then obtained the minister's submission to that federal committee. I was surprised that nowhere in the submission was a demand on the federal government to advise what their estimate of the cost to enforce the federal gun registration scheme would be. I do not have the minister's unprepared remarks. I take it that she read out the formal statement which we have and then, as well, she went into other discussions.

I am wondering if the minister would advise whether she has obtained from the federal government that estimate and, if not, whether her department has estimated the enforcement cost.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the paper the member is referring to was not my speaking notes. That was a brief that I filed, and then I spoke before the committee. In speaking before the committee, I outlined our concern very specifically, cost being one issue. Among the four or five major concerns cost was one. I spoke about the direct cost and then I also wanted to look into the indirect cost to a province in terms of the administration of the system.

When I was in Ottawa, we had already heard two figures by that time, just even in the short time of the hearings. We had heard the $85 million and then we were up to $119 million, both figures coming from Ottawa.

We have continually pressed the federal government to provide us with an accurate costing for the implementation of Bill C-68. We have not had, to my knowledge, an accurate costing. We have had some forecasting from the federal government, but I do not believe that it has included for provinces what they presume will be the direct cost for our province and indirect cost. That information has not yet been forthcoming from the federal minister.

Of course, all of our questions are premised on the fact that the bill passes as is. We do not know if in fact there will ever be any amendments to that bill or if in fact the bill may take a different shape, so we have not received that information.

I agree, you know, that is really important information for the people of Manitoba to know, in an accurate way, what the cost of this registration system is and the cost both in terms of the policing costs required, but also those indirect costs, the cost of maintaining a court and Crown attorneys who are available to prosecute. So it does stand to be potentially quite expensive, and as I have said before, an expensive proposition where there has been no demonstrated link yet to show that the registration of firearms will reduce criminal activity or the failure to register will increase criminal activity.

I am not sure if the member is saying that he is supportive of this government continuing to ask that question. I hope so because perhaps that will have further impact on the federal government.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in light of the legislative history in Canada, I think it is fairly predictable that this legislation will pass in the form that it is in. I could be wrong, but I certainly urge the minister to get that information.

She raises the issue of the indirect cost of prosecutions and other court costs. I have been particularly concerned, however, about the enforcement costs; in other words, the time that police will have to spend on enforcing this legislation, which appears to be rejected by those who are most affected, so there could be some real enforcement challenges ahead, but I urge the minister to pin the federal government down.

It is my understanding, and I would like the minister to share with the committee what her understanding is, that while the federal government will pay the registration costs, the costs of the registration system itself, which I think is what she calls the direct costs, the federal government has no intention whatsoever of changing any cost-sharing formulas that may exist right now for the indirect costs; in other words, the enforcement and prosecution costs.

* (2110)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I have said from the very beginning one of the biggest concerns as Minister of Justice is that I believe the system which is being proposed by the federal government will take police officers from the street and from the kinds of work in which we believe is very important for them to do. That is reacting to calls of people within the community, or doing other kinds of community work, and that, in fact, now chunks of their time will be spent attending at people's homes to see if they have registered their firearms.

This was a concern at the very beginning because as Minister of Justice I am very concerned that our police officers are doing the work that will benefit the safety of the people of Manitoba, and to have the federal government reach into our system and simply determine that part of the work of the police, over and above with no consultation to federal Ministers of Justice, that police will now be responsible for the enforcement part of a federally set up registration system has been a great concern from the very beginning. It is the lead-off point that I presented before the parliamentary committee.

The member hopes I will continue to press the federal government for an answer. I have been. What came up at the parliamentary committee is that you can press and press but that does not mean they are going to necessarily provide us with the answer. I think the people of Manitoba deserve that answer. So it has been my position that we will continue to ask the federal government for information and to continue to express to the federal government a concern that the enforcement side of this may take police officers from doing work that will truly benefit the public safety of the people of Manitoba.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the community advisory committee still ongoing with reviewing the Pedlar report?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, yes, I understand that this committee is still in existence. It has not been disbanded. I am not sure when that committee last met, that group of individuals who were looking at the Pedlar report. I understand they were very active in lobbying the federal government in the area of stalking and criminal harassment.

I can tell the member that they have been very helpful and provided quite a lot of information to us, and certainly we are open to further information if that is to be forthcoming from that committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is this minister's view of the CART system that was recommended in Pedlar, and is there any ongoing review of that recommendation?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member, in his questioning, is moving into areas of detail that I think may be best covered when we are dealing with Prosecutions and the Prosecutions staff are here who would be available to bring us totally up to date on the two possible models. I think I heard the member say in his speech he was looking at the Saskatchewan model which very closely resembles the CART model. I am not sure if he spoke further about that.

If the member would be willing to put this question over until prosecutions staff come in I think he may find that more helpful.

Mr. Mackintosh: In the NDP caucus task force hearings on violence we heard repeatedly concerns about the delays in the Family Violence Court. We heard as well about the delays in the court system dealing with violence against women outside of Winnipeg where, of course, there is no Family Violence Court.

Point of Order

Mrs. Vodrey: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is a Family Violence Court operating in the city of Brandon. I have outlined to the member prospective other locations for such a court, although not operating now, and that there is training for Crown attorneys across this province.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The Chair rules that the honourable Minister of Justice does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Mackintosh: I say I will reserve judgment as to whether there is a Family Violence Court in Brandon or not. Just because the government calls it such, I do not know if it deserves a title--just like boot camps. We will deal with that further.

The concern about backlogs though was ubiquitous throughout the province. I am wondering if the minister would advise the committee what, in her view, has been done to deal with the backlogs over the past year.

* (2120)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, we have been working with the chief judge, with our Courts division, with our Prosecutions division to make sure that any delay in all of our court areas is reduced to the minimum. In the area of the domestic violence or family violence cases we have been working very hard. Any delay which may have been there has certainly been reduced.

The statistics that I have in front of me for June 1995 say that for domestic violence in-custody cases the time frame is two and a half to three and a half months and that the out-of-custody is approximately four months. Hearing dates, I understand, for those accused who are in custody are available as early as July 4. Now that is less than a month, though there certainly are a large majority of dates available towards the end of August, which is still less than three months away. The Family Violence unit has access to these early custody dates to help them with their workload.

In practical terms there are dates available. The average which I gave to the member, that two and a half to three and a half months in-custody, certainly we are able to show that dates are available before that, and the out-of-custody, approximately four months.

As the member knows, when we set up the Family Violence Court, the goal of the Family Violence Court was to have matters heard between three and four months, so we are within that window. Being within that window is a result of working with all divisions and also with the judiciary to see that these cases are heard in a very timely way.

Mr. Mackintosh: I remind the minister that the objective was three months. I know just from the minister's own numbers here, and her numbers are always taken from the date of the first appearance until the date of the hearing, but out-of-custody cases taking four months on average means that there can be cases that are taking many months longer than that. So that is my concern, for the record.

But my main concern dealing with the Family Violence Court has emanated from, first of all, one case that a member in our caucus was familiar with and, as well, the information set out in Jane Ursel's study of the Family Violence Court, which indicated that in child sexual assault cases, there was a backlog of approximately 18 months, a backlog for cases that should be dealt with the most swiftly because we are dealing with very delicate issues of memory here, of intimidation.

We have often argued that in the youth court, the backlogs should be as short as possible because in the mind of a youth, life has changed 10 times over in the course of 10 months. Time is much longer for a youth than it is for an adult, but when we are looking at children who are victims and who are going to be called on as witnesses, the need for a swift turnaround is even greater.

I wonder what the minister is doing about the backlog documented by Jane Ursel of 18 months for child abuse cases?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the member would be good enough to give the dates of that study by Jane Ursel because my memory is that that study dealt with a court and court time, court appearances, several years ago.

If the member can, for the purposes of this committee, give the dates of the study that he is referring to and where that case example came from in terms of the date, that would be most helpful in responding.

Mr. Mackintosh: As I recall, the study was at least a year and a half, perhaps two years old, for its data at the time of its release. It did not stop the minister from relying on it, by the way, when there was something positive in there, but more instructive as to the backlog of dealing with child abuse cases was the case with which I am familiar that was disposed of last spring, and the backlog there was two years.

Now, if the minister is disputing the backlog for child abuse cases, then I would like her to do that for the record. Whether it is two years, 18 months or one year, I say anything longer than three months for child abuse is too long.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, in the member's own words, he thinks the study is probably at least two years old or more and that was my recollection, that it reflected sometime around '92-93 and perhaps data collected before that. So I would like to bring him up to date because that has been the point of our discussion.

When I gave him the facts of the times available in Domestic Violence Court, I gave him in-custody dates of two and a half to three and a half months out of custody dates for four months. The same resources, these resources of the Family Violence Court, are the resources that are available in child abuse cases. So I am happy to have had the opportunity to bring him up to date in terms of when court dates are available.

It is always difficult when the member brings a single case to this House. Obviously, we have to be very careful in reflecting on any cases, particularly cases which deal with children. It makes it very, very difficult to answer a broad set of allegations that the member brings based on one case. He only brings one case study forward and then he jumps in and says a whole lot of things are going wrong with the whole Family Violence Court when he knows that I am really unable to speak about a specific case or any reasons why a specific case may have taken the time. There may be a lot of reasons, as the member knows.

I think what is important for our discussion tonight is that the court dates available are within a time frame very close to the time frame that the member has put forward, and we are continuing to work on that. We understand that it is very important where possible--and possible means the co-operation of the lawyers involved also and that means the defence lawyer as well--to see those cases and hear those cases, at least have dates available. Now, if people choose to conduct the case in a different way, then it is very difficult for me to answer that when I know that there is time provided, and it is very difficult to answer a specific case.

I would say to the member that certainly we as a government and I as minister understand very well the importance of having cases heard in a timely fashion. As a person who spent a great deal of my professional life working directly with children, many of these children who had been children who were involved in cases regarding child abuse--in fact, I was among the first professionals in the city of Winnipeg to deal with children who spoke about child abuse and who revealed that this had happened. I fully understand the point the member is making. He really does not have to continue to harp as if I do not know about it. I am informed about it and have worked directly with those young people.

So I would say to him that rather than relying on a study, an old study of old dates, I am happy to bring him up to date with the dates available and want to assure him that I certainly understand the importance of the hearing of cases within a timely fashion and that we continue to try and make sure that it continues and that we improve wherever possible.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the minister's view of using videotaped evidence of child sexual abuse victims?

* (2130)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, certainly, any steps which would be helpful in reducing the trauma to children in such cases are important to look at, but we also recognize that we cannot ignore the Charter requirements. So the principle of the reduction of stress is a good one. I am certainly willing to look at suggestions, but, right now, in terms of trying to bring effect to that, it is, as the member knows, a complex legal area, and we are having to move very carefully in that one.

Mr. Mackintosh: At the time we were doing the Estimates last, the double-charging directive, I guess it was called, or the counteraccusation charging directive was issued by the department, I believe there had been some communications, at least, to the City of Winnipeg police at that time about that. I am wondering what the experience has been with that directive and whether double charging has been reduced as a result.

Mrs. Vodrey: As the member knows, this is ultimately a police decision in terms of the charging. What we can do is we can guide, we can urge police services not to make a victim doubly a victim. That is what we have made an effort to do. We do not have any specific statistics, but I can tell the member that this issue has certainly been raised less often since we sent out the information on the counteraccusation.

Mr. Mackintosh: I share that sense that the minister has. I am just hoping for some better information, but I am wondering if this counteraccusation charging directive has been sent to the other police forces in Manitoba.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it was sent to all law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Mackintosh: As the minister knows, the zero tolerance--well, let us put it this way, the mandatory charging--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Order, please. Madam Minister of Justice, I do not believe your remarks with regard to your direction to the police forces was recorded on Hansard. Would Madam Minister of Justice wish to readdress the record at this time with those remarks and see if they would be recorded?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am happy to state again for the record and for Hansard that directive from the then-assistant deputy minister of Prosecutions went to all police services.

Mr. Mackintosh: As the minister knows, there are detailed mandatory charging procedures in place for the City of Winnipeg and the City of Brandon police forces. I am not aware of similar directives or procedures in place for other police forces, including the RCMP. Indeed, when the task force was going around Manitoba, we asked an RCMP constable if he was aware of such a directive in his area, and he said no.

I am wondering if the minister followed up on our enquiries last time and whether she is aware as to whether mandatory charging directives and procedures are in place throughout the province.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly, to my knowledge, the directives went to every police service, and I am even including the military police. It is very difficult for me to specifically account for a single presenter to the NDP task force in his response that he did not know about it, but certainly it would be important if the member wants to tell me where that occurred. I could pass that on through the RCMP that some people perhaps do not know about this, and it is important that they do.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would ask leave of the other members if I could make a brief opening remark to these Justice Estimates.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Does the honourable member have leave? [agreed]

Mr. Kowalski: I thank the members for that privilege. This is my second set of Justice Estimates that I have had the honour and privilege of taking part in as a member of this Legislative Assembly.

I think, at the last session of Estimates, we might have set a record for the longest Justice Estimates on record, but it was a very worthwhile experience for myself and, I hope, others. I have learned a lot about the department.

Because of our party's position in this Legislature with three members, we are limited to our resources and our capabilities as far as being able to attend all Estimates hearings and take full part, so unfortunately I will not be able to give the attention and the detail to these Estimates that I would like to give and would be relying on Hansard when I am not present to record and give me an opportunity to peruse what the other members are exploring in these Estimates.

In this past election, the government won the majority of seats, but I think an important part to remember is that 57 percent of the people who voted voted for someone other than a Conservative candidate and voted for something other than the Conservative policies.

* (2140)

We could conjecture as to whether 57 percent of the people did not agree with the Conservative platform on justice, on gun control, on education, on social spending, or we could assume that for different people it will be different things. So just as I represent all the people of The Maples whether they voted for me or supported me, this government represents all of Manitobans, including that 57 percent of the people who did not vote for this government's platforms and policies. I think that a large constituency deserves to be represented, and as a Liberal candidate who was successful in this last election, I represent the almost 25 percent of the electorate who agreed with some part, if not all parts, of the Liberal platform. I bring that, and I feel a heavy duty to bring that into this Legislature and to voice that constituency in this Estimates process.

I do not think there is anyone in this Legislature who does not want a better justice system, who does not want safer streets, who does not want to be able to have their son or daughter or their spouse or their grandparent to be able to go to the corner store at ten o'clock at night without fear, to be able to send their teenaged child down to Portage Place Mall on a Friday night without fear that they are going to be attacked. We all want the same thing, but we have very different ideas on how that it is to be achieved.

We differ from the government's approach to solving this problem. I hope the government is correct; I hope I am wrong. The results will be shown over the next four years as to their policies and their practices, what effect they have on the crime rate, what effect they have on the number of people who are scared to go out at night. Will it improve? The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

We can argue in this Chamber as towards philosophies and principles, but in the end we will know the crime rate, which direction it goes in. We know how people feel about safety in their community--and for us to remember that this is the Manitoba Legislature.

Some members of this Legislature may have ambitions to be federal M.P.s and would like to get involved in federal legislation, but I am here as a member of the Manitoba Legislature to argue and criticize the government in the areas that concern the Manitoba Legislature and the department and expenditures of this government. As a critic my role is to be constructive, but as a government there will be a hesitation--not a hesitation, but government will try to put the best face forward, and as a critic I will try to root out any inefficiencies, any mistakes that this government makes, not to personally hurt any member but for the best interests of Manitobans.

I have to say that my experience working with the staff from the Justice department has always been good. I think we have some of the best staff in the Attorney General's department, in Corrections, in all of Canada who do a fantastic job. My criticisms I hope will be constructive, and I hope any criticism of any staff member will be seen not as personal but as a way to achieve better results for the fight against crime and for the safety issues that concern Manitobans. Thank you.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, if I may just have a couple of moments to comment on those introductory remarks, it would be helpful.

First of all, let the member understand that this government understands that we act in the interests of all the people of Manitoba, and our role is to make decisions, often very tough decisions. That is what governments have to do, they have to decide. That was a very difficult role for certainly the Liberal Party in the last election because you cannot take both sides. Ultimately, one time you have to come down and make a decision on behalf of the people of Manitoba. That is what this government's record has been. That is what this government will continue to do because that is governing. That is, in fact, doing our job in the Legislature.

I understand that the member may not always agree with the position and the decisions that this government takes. However, Mr. Chair, just let me remind him that decisions have to be taken and they have to be taken with a view to the effect on the people of Manitoba. So governing is one.

Secondly, he raises the issue of public safety, and let me assure him that public safety is the priority for the Department of Justice and for me as minister, because when people ask me what my job is, my job is to deal with the public safety of Manitobans. We understand very well that the issue of public safety affects both the safety of children, which he referenced, and our confidence of our children. He has children. I have children. The member for St. Johns has children. We want our children to be out in the community and feel safe.

We understand that steps have to be taken along the whole continuum of the justice system to deal with that public safety issue. There has to be support on the policing end. There has to be support through the courts and prosecutions. There has to be consequences through corrections. There has to be prevention programs which are put forward. Public safety is not a single act.

There is not a single act which will affect the crime stats on their own, but it is a number of acts. It is a comprehensive plan which has to come together. It requires not only the government of Manitoba or the Department of Justice to implement that plan, but it requires everyone who is a part of our community in Manitoba. It requires Manitobans in their communities to come forward and take part in crime prevention programs, to participate.

The member knows that in my opening remarks I spoke about the number of ways in which ordinary Manitobans can become involved in the justice system, how they can become involved through assisting police, how they can become involved through youth justice committees, how they can become involved in prevention programs like No Need To Argue, because we need them. In order to deal with public safety, we have to make sure that there are a whole lot of ways for all of the people who believe that public safety is important to participate, because one group cannot do it alone.

The member speaks about his work as a provincial member and has somehow restricted it to only dealing then with issues within provincial jurisdiction. But I think he has made a mistake and perhaps misunderstood, because another part of our role is to represent the point of view of the people of Manitoba to the federal government. Now he has taken the view in his opening remarks that you do not necessarily push the federal government, because that is what federal M.P.s do and that his role is only here. Well, I believe he is wrong because we must speak up on behalf of the people of Manitoba to the federal government, and that has been clear in this House, not only on policies as they relate to justice, but on behalf of economic policies that relate to the federal budget cuts in health and post-secondary education, that deal with agriculture. We do not just sit here and not have a voice.

Now I understand that the member from the Liberal Party is perhaps a little sensitive in speaking to the federal Liberal government and perhaps does not want to make any waves and so will not be onside with the people of Manitoba, even some of those 57 percent that he considers were in support of he or another party or other parties.

Where those people have a point to make to the federal government, he does not feel that is really his role as a provincial MLA. I think he is wrong. I think where he can find it in himself and in his party, who sit in this Legislature to support positions of this government to the federal government, that they make changes in the interests of public safety which we are speaking about here today, I would look for his support.

* (2150)

I would look for his support in the area of the antistalking changes that deal with the safety of women primarily. If he thinks they are important, then I believe it would be great if he would declare on the record during the course of these Estimates that he supports them, that he supports actions in relation to the Young Offenders Act or wherever he may find it important to stand with the people of Manitoba on behalf of issues of importance to them, to the federal government and make that point. So I will be looking forward to hearing that.

He also mentions it is important in his role to root out ineffectiveness. I understand he speaks for people who have another point of view and they have to be raised here, and it is my role to answer him. However, it would be really helpful to the people of Manitoba if he also spoke in support of the positive.

I have heard this member speak very frequently about the importance of preventative programs, and I agree. I think prevention is a very important part, particularly the area of youth crime. When we unveiled a program called No Need to Argue, which dealt with young people from high schools and junior high schools all across the city of Winnipeg and encouraged them to identify in their communities a problem or a difficulty and then to work with their community members, not alone, not just with a school, but with their community to try and provide a solution to that problem, we would look at providing recognition to those young people.

Yes, there was some reward offered, and we were going to put these solutions together in a bound copy and circulate them around the province of Manitoba so individual people did not have to try and reinvent the wheel. What did he say? He did not like it. He opposed it. He spoke out forcefully against it. The people of Manitoba were surprised because there was an effort to be positive. There was an effort to deal with prevention. There was an effort to involve the community.

As the member is making his comments during the course of these Estimates, I understand his role to raise issues and certainly I will do my best to provide him with answers, but I do believe the other part of his role may also be where there is something good for the people of Manitoba, completely in sync with what he has declared is important to him. It would be very nice for the people of Manitoba to hear from him.

Mr. Kowalski: Yes, I just wanted to put on the record the fact that I have commented positively on the government's policies when I agree with them. To disagree with the focus of the No Need to Argue campaign does not discount the value of preventative programs in general, that if the one program could have been done better to affect and target the young people who are involved the most in this province in creating the youth crime stats, I do not take that as discounting all preventative programs.

I am not an apologist for the federal Liberal government. Never have been. I see the role of provincial politicians in advocating for Manitoba, but we do have federal M.P.s, yes. We do have Justice minister conferences from across Canada. There are parliamentary committees where we can put forward Manitoba's point of view. I am in communication with federal members of Parliament to put forward my views and the views of the constituency I represent. I do not abrogate the role of a provincial politician to lobby the federal government in the correct direction, but it should not lose the focus away from the responsibilities of this provincial government. I do see a role as a provincial MLA, but I feel that often more attention is given to lobbying the federal government than taking care of business at home.

I will leave those comments. I know the minister has staff coming in from different departments, so I just would like to get some direction into some of the areas where I will be asking some questions on.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I will be asking some questions in regard to sick leave and absentee rates at the different correctional facilities in comparison from one correctional facility--for example, the Provincial Remand Centre in comparison to the Winnipeg Remand Centre compared to Headingley for this year and previous years to see which way it is trending, as an indication of the morale in those departments.

I will be asking questions in regard to the night court, statistics as to how many young offenders it dealt with, the time lines, any information we could get about the youth night court that was instituted.

The other area that I will asking is in regard to Community and Youth Corrections, as far as training opportunities for volunteers and training sessions for volunteers in Community and Youth Corrections, not only youth justice committee members but other volunteers in regard to the position of volunteer co-ordinator in Community and Youth Corrections.

Those will be the areas, so I give notice to the minister in case her staff can bring the information when we come to those lines in the Estimates.

Mr. Mackintosh: Shortly before the last election a message was printed with the picture of Gary Filmon on the front, and the document was entitled Law and Order and Public Safety, Manitobans and Gary Filmon Keeping Manitoba Strong. It set out a number of issues, public safety, some of it puffery, and I am wondering who paid for the document. I trust the minister is familiar with the document.

* (2200)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, that piece of information, which is in fact a record of the work which this government has put forward in the area of justice on the law and order agenda, was paid for through caucus mailing, which of course all caucuses are entitled to provide a certain amount.

Mr. Mackintosh: The document talks about how Manitoba has been dealing with drunk drivers and claims that Manitoba has the toughest drunk-driving legislation in the country. The position on this side is that it is not tough enough. The minister knows full well that there is a problem of repeaters, a very serious problem that is affecting the safety of Manitobans. I am wondering if the minister would share with the committee her plans to make this legislation truly effective.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the member would mind addressing this question when we get to line 1.(c) when the staffperson who is most involved in this area is here to provide additional information.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the recent provincial campaign the government announced several initiatives, and I wanted to go through some of those.

One is that the government intends to make parents financially responsible for the property crimes of their children. Would the minister agree to table with the committee any legal opinion it has as to how that can be done?

Mrs. Vodrey: I think the initiative is really what the member wants to talk about, and so I am happy to tell him that we certainly believe that we are able to accomplish this.

My department is working very carefully right now to develop the particular instrument to achieve this, and I look forward to being able to share more with him when the project is complete.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise the committee, is she looking at civil or criminal sanctions for parents?

Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member that we are presently looking at civil sanctions. However, we have been lobbying the federal government to look at including parental responsibility in the Young Offenders Act, and we are asking federal government to look at criminal.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if there is not now a civil cause of action though against parents in certain circumstances, and I am wondering how the government intends to change that.

Mrs. Vodrey: It is our view that it is presently somewhat unclear as to whether or not there is a cause of action against parents, so that is one of the areas that we are looking at developing now.

I am not able to share anything further with him because, as I have said, we made it clear that it is our intention to do this, and I will be able to tell him more about exactly how when I am ready to unveil the whole plan.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, surely the ability to make parents financially responsible for the wrongs of their children depends on whether it is cost beneficial to go ahead with a civil claim or not. I am wondering how the government intends to change the cost benefit of proceeding in a civil claim against parents.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the issues that the member is raising are issues that we are looking at, and we are looking at more. In the cost-benefit area we have to look at enforcement. So the member has raised some of the issues which we in fact are exploring to bring together a full package to deal with what we spoke about during the election, and that is, we want to make sure that there is some parental responsibility put back into the system.

When I first spoke about changes to the Young Offenders Act on behalf of our government and our government's position, I made it clear then that we would be asking the federal government to put parental responsibility back into the Young Offenders Act. But the question that followed was, what if they will not do it? Will you do it? At that time I made it clear that, yes, we would be looking at ways that provincially we could bring parental responsibility back into the system if the federal government refused to do it.

Now, in the changes that they have suggested that they are going to make to the Young Offenders Act, parental responsibility is not among the changes. So, it does fall to us provincially then to say that we believe that parents must have some responsibility. As I have spoken about this before, the issue is one of parental responsibility, but the big issue here is to assist the victim, because it is the victim who has always been the one who has been left behind and left out. So the purpose of the legislation is not to punish parents, but it is in fact to bring an element of parental responsibility back and to assist the victim and to put the victim back into the equation, because we believe that the victim's position has really been somewhat reduced. We have kind of forgotten about the victim, and our government's view is that is wrong, that the victim has to come back into the equation. This is one way in which we plan to do that.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister is reading my speeches from last Estimates again about the role of the victim and how we have to get the victim back in. We are all for victim involvement in the system and for restitution. I am just wondering, based on the minister's advice that she is looking at some civil law change, how is it that provisions can be made for payments based on the parent's ability to pay, which is set out in the election agenda. How is that possible? Either you have a civil cause of action or you do not have a civil cause of action. Or does the minister intend on having a civil cause of action and restrict the judgment based on ability to pay, and then there has to be evidence adduced as to ability to pay?

I mean, I fail to understand what this election promise means, and I--from listening to the minister, it sounds like the government does not know what it is going to do either. Would the minister say just how ability to pay is going to be used in any system, how it is going to be implemented and would she also advise what the timetable is for its implementation?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, first of all, I am very happy that the member is pleased to support us in the area of supporting victims. I am glad to hear that, and we will be looking forward to his support as we bring forward our initiatives that deal with victims. I hope that, in terms of wondering how this government arrived at parental responsibility, the introduction of the role of the victim has been helpful to him.

* (2210)

He says that he is not really sure where this government is going and where this government plans to go. So, in a broad statement, let me tell him again that we would like to reintroduce parental responsibility into the area of acts that young people take, where young people in fact leave victims behind. We would like to consider victims. We understand that there are cases where parents have done everything possible to try and restrain their child or try and stop their child from entering into this criminal activity or antisocial behaviour, and that would be considered when we bring forward our plan. We understand that. We understand that parents need support in setting limits.

So what I can tell him today is, again, the very general response that I have been given is that we are looking at the issues that he has raised and others, because this was our commitment, not only in the election, this was our commitment that we made. We first asked for changes in the area of the Young Offenders Act. When that whole package is prepared, I will be more than happy to provide him with the details, but at the moment we are investigating a whole range of options and ways in which we can make this actually work. When it is complete, I will be more than happy to share that with the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). In fact, I will look forward to the support of his party because he has underscored, again tonight, his interest in helping victims. That really will be the goal, just to put the victim back into the equation. So I will look forward to the support of the NDP party when this plan is brought forward.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there a provincial crime prevention council?

Mrs. Vodrey: The detailed discussion of this might best take place under 2.(d), and it was part of what was discussed in the nine-point plan. It is not operating yet because the process of developing it was to serve as a resource to the Youth Justice Committees across the province and others who could use its support. These Justice Committees were very concerned that we would somehow just put something in place and somehow make that have some authority over Youth Justice Committees, and that was never the plan. The plan was to provide, through a provincial council, a group of experts who would have knowledge of research and practice methods and so on which would be of assistance.

The steps that have been taken so far are the person who agreed to accept the chair at the time of the announcement, the chairpersonship, has travelled through Manitoba, with our Community Corrections as support, and has met with Youth Justice Committees across the province and has worked out with the Youth Justice Committees what it is that they are particularly interested in and what would be of help to them. That information has now come back to government. There have been some recommendations of names of people who might serve on that committee. I believe that there are perhaps others, as well, who have expressed an interest in working in this area and have always been helpful, without saying who they are, because, at this point, we do not have a commitment with them. But now the process is to secure a commitment from individuals who are willing to operate within a mandate that really was developed as a process of consultation.

The member may have considered this to have been somewhat time consuming. Yes, it has taken some time for all the visits to occur, for all the information to be developed for groups to give some thought to what, in fact, a provincial Crime Prevention Council might do and how it might assist them. We wanted to set up a practical vehicle. We wanted to set up something that would really be helpful, and that is the process that we have been following.

Mr. Mackintosh: I guess it should be no surprise, but I continue to be surprised by things I read from this government. In the election document it says, the provincial Crime Prevention Council will continue to seek the advice of experts on the development of community crime prevention initiatives. I had never heard of that before. The minister has just confirmed tonight that there is no provincial Crime Prevention Council, yet during the election, no hesitation to say that it was continuing to do its work. Does the minister have any comments on that?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, yes, I do have some comments because there certainly was a chair of that. The person was named and accepted the position at the time of the release of the nine-point plan, and that person, acting, did in fact continue to do the work of the provincial council. The work at that time was making sure there were visits to all of our youth justice committees, and, in fact, that a wide mandate for the use of, as the member said, other experts, so that we could look at how other experts might be used, was in fact the work of that individual and that is exactly how it happened.

If the member has some difficulty in that, he might like to talk about it. Perhaps in his view he would have just put people in place and then looked to see if that worked. We chose a method where we named the chair of that Crime Prevention Council and the chair then made visits around the province. I am sure the member knows, I am sure they visited any of the youth justice committees in his area, and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). That is how we have been working, Mr. Chair, and if the member has a difficulty with that, he might like to talk about it.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the election the government announced that it was going to find ways to reduce wasteful litigation. Would the minister advise the committee what action is being taken to pursue that objective?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, at the moment I have asked our Courts Division to develop a plan with some options and then, with that in mind, we will be approaching those people who would be participants on such a review, and use this as a starting place to develop both the mandate and the membership. So it is certainly our intention to move on this matter and we will certainly look forward to the results as well.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister contemplate bringing in the legislation for vehicle confiscation to penalize johns in this session?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, we came back into this session within about three and a half weeks of our election to government for a third time, and the legislation, I understand, is to be have had second reading within the next week and a half at this point.

So I can say to him that we are in the process of developing that plan and that legislation, but I believe that on behalf of our government, I will look forward to tabling our plan for the next legislative session, which I am not sure when that will be called. That is up to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

In our current session, which I understand will take place this spring and into the fall it will be unlikely, due to the dates that have been set out, that it will be introduced in this session.

* (2220)

Mr. Mackintosh: In her opening remarks, the minister described the youth gang phone line as successful. I am just wondering on what basis the minister says that.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am wondering if the member would mind putting that question over into 2.(e), so that the staff who may have the information would be available for that discussion.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that the government promised that Autopac deductibles would be made available for antitheft devices from MPIC. Is the minister knowledgeable on that plan?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the member raise that question with the Minister responsible for MPIC when that minister's Estimates come up for review.

Mr. Mackintosh: It was also said during the election that by using funds from the sale of confiscated criminal property the Victim Assistance Program would be expanded by $250,000. Would the minister tell the committee the basis on which that estimate was founded?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, that is one which, if we could consider it, 2.(e), that would provide the most information.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the election campaign, we discovered that the chief of police for Winnipeg Police Services, for one, had been invited by the government to attend an announcement on additional funding for policing. Would the minister tell the committee whether the chief of police was contacted by a member of her department to invite him to that press conference?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, to my memory and of course this took place several weeks ago, several months ago now, I believe that the invitation was extended by a phone call from myself to the chief's office, though I was not able to speak to the chief directly and did not about this. It was up to the chief whether or not he wished to attend. As the member knows, very often it is a practice to invite those people who are affected by decisions to be present when that is announced. As the Premier made clear on that day, this was funding which is available in the current budget which was passed by this government and the funding was available and it was the plan of this government to proceed with the 40 new police officers or the $2 million targeted grant, special grant, to the Winnipeg Police Services.

Mr. Mackintosh: I think it is unfortunate that the government, and this minister in particular, has compromised the position of the chief of police in this city. The chief of police is not a politician and must be there to serve all Manitobans, but during the election campaign a call to be made by this minister or, as a press announcement had indicated, a member of the minister's staff, was indeed a wrong decision and one that has to be censured.

During an election campaign the government is a caretaker, and the announcement was clearly one intended for political purposes. The minister can make no argument otherwise. If there is any amount in the budget, well, no one knew about it, and we will get to that. That is irrelevant. What has happened here is that the chief of police has been tainted by this, and to be put in the position of saying no to a government was very difficult for him, for any individual, in that circumstance.

Mrs. Vodrey: Just to reply, it looks like the member is moving on and I would like an opportunity just to comment on that.

Mr. Chair, as the member knows the dollar amount has been allotted in the budget through the budget of now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was asked this question also and said publicly that the information was given in a timely way and that the election was called after the budget was passed. However, this was an intention contained within our budget.

As I said to the member earlier, it is very often the case that individuals are invited to announcements where they are directly affected by them. In this case, there was a direct effect on the City of Winnipeg Police Services. However, as the member knows, the invitation was simply extended through the chief's office, and if he was unable to attend that certainly is not a problem. Perhaps, you know, that may happen on other occasions as well where he is simply not able to attend. It has happened in the past where invitations have been extended and he has not been able to attend.

* (2230)

The member has somehow tried to deflect the importance of the initiative for the public safety of the people of the city of Winnipeg. He has tried to remove that and somehow create some kind of an event, and, Mr. Chair, he is quite wrong, and I believe that the people of the city of Winnipeg understand that he is quite wrong and that the importance of this announcement is not really who was there or who was available to make a comment, that the importance was really that, in fact, there was an announcement by this government of an intention, contained in our budget, to provide a grant to the City of Winnipeg to provide for 40 new additional police officers.

That, Mr. Chair, is really the importance of the announcement. The importance of the announcement is the public safety of Manitobans that, we believe, will be enhanced further by more police officers on the street, more police officers available to answer calls, more police offices that are available and seen by citizens which often will act as a deterrent to criminal activity.

The importance is the effect that it will have on the people of the city of Winnipeg, and the member is making some attempts to try and move the light onto something else, and I am not really sure why. However, I would like to bring him back to the importance of the announcement and the meaning of the announcement to the people of the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, the minister knows exactly why I raise this issue and why I raised it during the election campaign. The damage has been done. The government has used a highly impartial office for its own advantage. It has compromised the position of chief of police and has done no good for anyone as a result.

As to the merits of the decision or the announcement, we in this party were amused at the timing, certainly, of that announcement, and the minister knows our views on that, and I ask the minister, after pronouncements in the Estimates book and pronouncements orally by her last time in Estimates that the government was committed to more community-based policing in Manitoba, why the government refuses to use the power of its funding to ensure that there is a successful community-based police program in the city of Winnipeg.

Mrs. Vodrey: Just to go back to the member's comments, I just would like to, for the record, make it very clear that there was no wrongdoing to have the chief of police attend where there were resources announced for the department of which he is chief, quite unlike the appearance of the chief of police and the Attorney General of the former NDP government who appeared together when charged were being laid.

Mr. Chair, if the member wants to look at any example of wrongdoing, that is an example and that received censure. The member should look to his own party when they were in government, a very serious error of judgment made at that time, and not try in any way to indicate that this announcement of resources, which is of benefit to the people of Winnipeg and the City of Winnipeg Police Service, in any way falls into that category.

Now that he is actually speaking about the grant, however, let me say that this government has expressed our view that it is important that we would like to see the money used for resources which would assist in dealing with youth crime and with auto theft and with auto vandalism, but as in community policing or in the direction of policing very specifically, we do understand that it is the chief of police who has to make those decisions, because it is the chief who has to ultimately answer to the people of the city of Winnipeg for how those police officers are deployed from within his overall plan.

So, though we are supportive of officers being in the community, we are supportive of officers being visible and we are supportive of officers being available and working in certain areas, I would still argue that it really is the chief who will make the ultimate decisions.

We have every reason to believe that he is interested and he wants to be co-operative and that he has a view that we believe is going to be very helpful to the people of the City of Winnipeg. However, we also accept his authority in the deployment of resources in this area.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder how the minister can say that when, on the other hand during the election, the government promised that police surveillance would be focused on gang leaders now. That is surely not deference to the chief of police.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly we work co-operatively with the City of Winnipeg police and have been doing so in terms of dealing with youth crime and violence, and that is exactly what that initiative is dealing with in terms of surveillance of gang leaders in the area of youth crime and violence. So there certainly is co-operation and consultation in that particular initiative which was announced.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the election, the government also announced that a Crown attorney would be dedicated to prosecuting auto thefts and major property crimes.

Would the minister tell the committee why having one Crown attorney doing that work is better than the current situation?

* (2240)

Mrs. Vodrey: I think I understood the member's question. The announcement referred to a Crown dedicated, in this case, to the co-ordination of cases dealing with auto theft and auto vandalism. This has certainly been a serious concern raised by the people of Manitoba and by the people of the city of Winnipeg. So we certainly intend to fulfill that promise in that way.

Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister is, what improvement will this be over the current situation? Why is it that one Crown attorney dedicated to auto thefts and major property crimes is an approvement?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, in this area the improvement we believe will be where we have one Crown dedicated to the co-ordination of cases in auto theft and auto vandalism, we then have an ability to make sure that all the Crowns get the right information on case law, that there is an understanding throughout the province of a consistent approach. It is not unusual to take steps to act in this way where we really want to make sure, and we want to highlight certain issues, so that is where we believe the improvement will come.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has a Crown attorney now been dedicated to auto thefts and major property crimes?

Mrs. Vodrey: No, the dedication of a co-ordinator has not yet occurred, but it is in the process.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is my recollection that the election promise talked about one Crown attorney prosecuting those charges, but I will await further announcements from the minister.

Going back to the throne speech from December, the government announced that it would be looking into the placing of names of convicted pedophiles on the Child Abuse Registry. I am wondering if the government has taken any initiatives there.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and I have been working very carefully and very closely to bring this commitment into effect. The Minister of Family Services, as the member knows, has a large part in this, and his question in terms of where that department is in terms of making the changes required to have this occur would really be best placed to that particular minister.

I would like to assure him that this has been an issue that we have been looking at and have been working together and there have been a number of meetings which have occurred, including ministers, by the way. This has not just been left to our officials to work on but ministers have been present at this meeting because we would like to see it occur.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the minister's position that there are now wilderness correctional camps in Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we have one camp that we would call a wilderness camp. It is operating out of the facility at Milner Ridge but it is a separate section dedicated to youth.

Mr. Mackintosh: Other than being located in the wilderness, are there any features of this camp that liken it to the wilderness camp model that I think should be familiar to the minister?

Mrs. Vodrey: I am more than happy to give a great deal of detail on this particular issue when we get to the youth corrections section. However, just to start in thinking, yes it does involve young people working within the community in terms of the wilderness area. They are youth who are currently in open custody.

I will be happy, when we get to that line, to talk to the member about any questions that he might have in relation to the operation of that particular wilderness camp which this province has developed in fulfillment of promises that we made to the people of Manitoba and have concluded that promise. The line is 4.(c).

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister talked about the No Need to Argue initiative in her opening remarks. As I recall, she said there had been 30 submissions from schools to date. Is that right?

Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister share with the committee the nature of the 30 submissions? If she cannot itemize each one can she at least give an overview of the types of projects that were submitted?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I can give two examples at this time, and then we may want to discuss it further when we get to the line.

One example is 50 students and staff at David Livingstone School developing a presentation on gangs and racism to present to parents, students and police; in Nordale, coming together to develop community-based programs--that was the second example, by the way. The first one was the presentation on gangs and racism. The second one was parents, students and police in Nordale coming together to develop community-based programs. A third example is students at Sturgeon Creek identifying key problems in their school and neighbourhood and designing their own special No Need To Argue program.

So those are three examples, actually, of initiatives that are being developed. They are being developed in different parts of the city. I am pleased that it is a co-operative effort between students and staff and involves also police and other community members who are looking at the issue of trying to provide some solutions to the youth crime and violence, something really very specific.

* (2250)

You know, I think very often it is easy for us to say that something should happen, but it is sometimes very difficult to actually get our minds around what is a problem that we believe we can actually make a difference and attempt to provide solutions to. That is what the No Need To Argue program does, in that it actually creates a focus for certain groups of people who have found an issue or a problem that they are prepared to work on and that they are prepared to put some time and effort into developing a solution to.

I am happy when I look at just even the three examples that I brought forward so far, that these programs are ones which are co-operative. It is always very difficult for a single group to feel that they have the responsibility.

Then I can also say, it is always easy for others to criticize. When one group actually comes up with a solution, identifies a problem and comes up with a solution, if others have only been observers in the process, then they are the ones who will just jump all over it and can very easily take issue with the solutions recommended and can somehow say that that is not the way to do it--much like opposition who ends up saying that it is just simply not the way to do it, that is wrong.

But, you know, we have to start somewhere, Mr. Chairperson. We have to start with the identification, and we have to have a group of individuals who are prepared to put their minds to that and actually make a start. I am very happy to see that this has happened, because sometimes people really get frustrated when they are criticized all the time, especially community people, people who are volunteers, and so they do not want to step forward and step into an arena that will put them at risk.

I am pleased that the No Need To Argue program has in fact been a spark or a reason for some communities to come together, identify a problem, risk stating a solution even though there may be some people--perhaps even in this House those who disagreed with the No Need To Argue program who will be critical of them. I hope that the member will not be. I hope in fact he will be reinforcing and supportive for the motivation and the actual work which has been done in the No Need To Argue program.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is our view that this kind of a program is generally positive, although a very, very small part of the solution. I can say that in my community her department is helping in one regard, and that is the establishment of a St. Johns Youth Justice Committee. I thank the minister and her staff, excellent staff, that came out to the meeting. We are working away, in fact, just the other night we concluded our draft constitution.

Another problem in our community, if the minister wants to hear about community problems, we have the North Y that is closing at the end of the month. We have asked the minister and this House to commit to helping to fund ongoing programs at that facility, without response. If the minister is truly interested in community responses I hope that she will look at problems that are raised in this House and community solutions that are brought forward.

We have people in north Winnipeg, hundreds of them, who are trying to keep that facility alive. What it is is crime prevention in the broader picture. The problem that is facing this government is its lack of acknowledgement of the connection between social and economic conditions, recreational and social services with the crime rate.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, as I believe I said at the time to the member, this program is one which is operated by our Community Corrections, and the money is certainly available. The decision of the North Y and their board is one they will have to take with the circumstances known to them. However, our money to support this program remains firm.

If we are not able to operate that program at the North Y then we will look to operate it in another facility, because our commitment is to involve these young people in some positive activities which in fact offer all kinds of skills, not only the skill of the particular sport but also other kinds of skills that go with the give and take of that kind of activity.

I would not want the member to leave an impression on the record that somehow this government is withdrawing support or that we have not understood the importance. We certainly have. If the North Y is unable to sustain itself or to be sustained then certainly our program will look to continue to exist and we may in fact require another location.

I am glad the member has found the staff in the Department of Justice very supportive in the setting up of this youth justice committee. I certainly am going to pass that on, because I know that they work in the community at all kinds of hours and all kinds of days of the week in order to encourage the community to become involved. Youth justice committees are one way that a community can become involved and feel that in fact they are making a difference.

The member speaks about a link between poverty and crime. I just would--

An Honourable Member: I did not just say poverty. I did not use the word "poverty."

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, to conclude.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, the member has stated that he did not say "poverty." I see. He has many other times. I do not know what has caused him to sort of change his language or the meaning. I believe that he used the word "socioeconomic condition," I think that is what he said. If he did not mean poverty, then maybe he is going to have to clarify, because that has certainly been what he has been saying before. He has taken a position that simply blamed all people who in his mind live in poverty for criminal activity. That is what he has done. He has pointed a finger--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Mackintosh: A point of order, Mr. Chair. It must be getting late because the minister is talking rubbish. I never said any such thing, and if she wants to make such aspersions on me and on my comment, I ask her to withdraw them because they are silly.

I grew up in poverty. Perhaps the minister does not know that. I am not going to cast aspersions on people who have had the misfortune of low income. That is nonsense. There happens to be a higher risk of people in low-income groups to criminal activity. That is well known to the minister, I am sure. That does not mean everyone in poverty will lead a life of crime.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order, but I would caution him on the use of the language. It could cause a little bit of problem with the decorum.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to hear that the member now says what he has said a hundred times before is rubbish. He says it is now. He says it is rubbish that poverty and crime go together. That is I think what he said this time.

However, he has obviously made the statement that there is a positive connection enough times because now, not only did I believe I heard him say it, others have written about what he has said. So maybe in the course of these Estimates, he will clarify what he means about the connection or what the role is, because certainly those of us who have heard him, both this time and other times--including members of the media--have assumed that is exactly what he meant.

However, let me just conclude my comments with the fact that we certainly understand that this kind of recreational program may be very beneficial for young people, and I hope I have clarified for him the position of Community Corrections on the very specific program that he raised.

Mr. Mackintosh: Now I get where the minister gets her themes. It is was from a recent Sun editorial. If the minister wants to rely on that for her theoretical foundations and her approaches to what I say, then she is more than welcome to do that. I welcome that.

The government has announced that the winner of the No Need to Argue initiative would receive a dance and $2,000, I believe. Is the government also committed to implementing the first place proposal even if it costs?

* (2300)

Mrs. Vodrey: I think the member should know that this government is interested in all of the recommendations which come forward through the No Need to Argue program. We certainly will be looking at all of them. For groups that are participating in the No Need to Argue program they are looking at getting their programs off the ground within their own communities, and that is really part of the project itself.

So I just want to make it clear that we are interested in all of the recommendations which come through, and we will be looking at all of them carefully.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute break and leave the clock running? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 11:01.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 11:09.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is there any government budget for the No Need to Argue program, other than, say, the $2,000 award?

* (2310)

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, any funds required are contained within the general Prosecutions budget. There is not a separate line that deals with No Need to Argue.

There have been quite a few donations, as well, as the member knows. I think he has the original news release, that we have had corporate support from a number of different areas, both from record companies; Motown records; from the Winnipeg Free Press; from Q-94 and from MTN. We have been very happy with that, plus we have had co-operation from a number of other areas. Certainly the City of Winnipeg police has been a major supporter and co-operating, as well, as the community police in particular. As well, we have had support from the violence co-ordinator from the City of Winnipeg. So there has been a number of donations. It has really been a co-operative effort, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mackintosh: I would ask the minister if she would share the description of the 30 submissions made to her office so that we can review them and see what people in the community, particularly in the schools, are looking at for solutions and whether she wants to provide that before or after the winner is chosen? I have no preference.

Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly the member can see the submissions after the winner is chosen. As I have said, our commitment to the people of Manitoba is that we will put these submissions and ideas together. We will bind them and we will make sure that people throughout Manitoba who are interested and who might like to look at some of these solutions and programs could perhaps then start them up in their own community.

Mr. Mackintosh: When I was speaking of the North Y facility closing--and I hope the minister would go back and look at my questions in Question Period on this issue--I was not asking that the minister merely continue the Night Hoops program. I would encourage her department to expand that program to other communities in Manitoba but to also see the North Y facility and the programs that can be offered out of that place as a crime prevention mechanism. In other words, it is our approach, and I know the government does not share that.

I know from comments, the minister endorses the view of the world of Naomi Lakritz, that income gap is irrelevant to crime or social and economic conditions are somehow unrelated to crime. I would like to hear the minister expound on that one because that is an amazing position for a minister to take. I can understand a journalist taking that to be provocative.

I urge the minister to look at the North Y as one of many facilities which can prevent crime, can provide youth, for example, with somewhere to go, something to do.

Mrs. Vodrey: It is my understanding that the North Y has a board of directors which makes decisions regarding that facility. It is not the first time that the member has suggested that government, in some way, overrule boards of directors in terms of their decision making though they have the overall plan.

So my answer to him is that we fund a program which takes place at the North Y. He has asked questions of other members of this House regarding a commitment to the North Y in particular, and as Minister of Justice what I can say is I agree that there must be places available where these programs can continue. But whether or not as a government we are able to force a facility or an independent board of directors to overrule its decision, I do not know that that is possible.

What I have tried to reassure him is that we certainly--if the north end Y ultimately finds that it must close its doors--will look to continue the programming, because we are in support of providing this kind of program for young people. That is why we are doing it, but it is very difficult, for him to ask will we step in and try and overrule an independent board of directors.

I understand it is not the first time that he has asked us to do that. He has asked us to step into the City of Winnipeg and specifically direct and so on. It is not possible always to do that, but it is possible to support programming in various areas, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister is just so loose with her rhetoric here. I never suggested, first of all, that the province specifically direct the City of Winnipeg--and I think she is referring to community-based policing. I urged the minister--and it was our program during the election--that the minister use the province's money as a carrot to spur community-based policing, use the tool and the lever of provincial funding.

Second of all, with regard to the North Y, we are not asking the government to overrule anything. The North Y closes on June 30. The community is aggressively seeking partners to maintain that facility. It needs help, and that is where this government can come in, if it would be a partner with the community, if it would listen to the community. The minister talks about listening to the community and uses the No Need to Argue example very often. We are saying the voices from the community are speaking loud and clear. It is time for the government to put its commitment where its mouth is.

* (2320)

I just had one comment, just to get this off my chest. The No Need to Argue name says that arguing is negative. I think that experiences in this Legislature and experiences other places prove that arguing can be a very positive thing.

The problem in society, the problem increasingly among some youth, is violence. There is no need to use violence. That is the issue. You can argue. You solve your disputes by discussing, by debating, but do not use violence. I do not want that comment to detract, however, from this program as being one small part of what I would like to see as a crime prevention initiative by this government.

Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased that the member has been able, at last, to offer some support to the No Need To Argue program.

Just to enlighten him, I would like to point out to him where the name No Need To Argue came from. The other major sponsor, one of the biggest draws of this program, is an international musical group called the Cranberries, and the Cranberries' CD title is called No Need To Argue. This particular rock group is one which has a nonviolence message. They are an Irish group. They have seen violence on a regular basis. Violence is a way of life, and it is their message, through their music, to say to young people, in particular, or those who listen to their music, that violence is not the way to solve your problems, and so they came up with the title for their CD called No Need To Argue.

The Cranberries were really interested when told about, or when they knew that Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada, was really working very hard at trying to find some positive ways to engage young people in nonviolent, preventative activity, and our concern about criminal activity of young people, and they agreed. This is just an amazing thing for an international rock group. They agreed that the name and the picture from their CD could be used very specifically for our program called No Need To Argue in the city of Winnipeg.

It really was an amazing gesture on their part, because they speak a language that youth understands, that they would then pass this message on, and allow us, in our city, to use it. Not only did they do that and agreed that all our posters are printed No Need To Argue with pictures of the singers and with our Street Peace logo on the top, because it was the Street Peace program that inspired a lot of their interest. They also filmed public service announcements where they spoke to students in Winnipeg, young people in Winnipeg, via public service announcements, using their term No Need To Argue to encourage young people to find ways other than violence.

So, I know the member is raising something from an adult point of view, and I appreciate that he, as he said, had to get it off his chest, but I do think it is very important to look at the incredible breadth of co-operation that we have had with this program.

I have to say, the Cranberries, to many people in this Chamber, may not be the most familiar group in the world, but I take them back to groups when we were young people, groups like the Beatles, who had that group shown an interest--and I see members smiling, but this is true. Had that group shown an interest in a project that we were doing in the city of Winnipeg and produced public service announcements that said to youth in the city of Winnipeg, here is a message for you young people, there is no need to argue or whatever it was, we would have really felt that we had gained some attention for the work that we were doing.

That is exactly what has happened in this No Need to Argue program. That is why Motown records is a sponsor. That is why there are public service announcements from the Cranberries. That is why we have some of the sponsorship.

I would just like to take another moment to speak about the sponsors. I look at those media groups who have agreed to sponsor. I look at Q-94, which is one of our sponsors, and when they came along as a sponsor, their view was, you know, we are parents too, and we have children. One of the sponsoring radio announcers, a young person, was involved in the peer counselling program at his school.

So there are programs in place, but this was a way for a group which does have influence with young people to make a point and for other adults, important figures in children's lives, to come on board, as well, in understanding. I understand that the No Need to Argue CD is still No. 1 one on the charts throughout North America and the United Kingdom.

So that is just for the record, Mr. Chair, should anyone be looking at Hansard and wonder how, in fact, this program got its name. I wanted to make sure that this was available for the record because there are other cities in other provinces across this country who are looking at Manitoba with real envy, and had we not been able to put this program together, I can tell you that British Columbia was waiting in the wings to have an opportunity to do that.

So I am very pleased at the level of co-operation that we have had within the city of Winnipeg, and I really look forward to seeing the programs that the young people bring forward.

Mr. Mackintosh: The comments by the minister have to be really put in the context of what this government is doing to our community, and while this program has some positive aspects, depending on how the government deals with the submissions, whether it is prepared to implement not just the first prize, but a number of the submissions if they are good and if they result in a more peaceful community, but this government, this is the same government that cut funding to the friendship centre in Winnipeg, resulting in what I understand was the dismissal of eight youth workers in now what is called the war zone, the same government that cut funding to foster parents.

This is the government that is overseeing the highest poverty rate in Canada, one of the highest rates of children in care per capita in Canada. I can go on and on. The minister has got to impress, not just on herself but on her cabinet colleagues, that crime rates and violence is a factor of social and economic conditions which in no small way are determined by this government.

I wanted to go on now to some of the other items in the budget. We can pass 1.(b).

Mr. Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $401,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $81,300--pass.

1.(c) Policy, Planning and Special Projects (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $309,900. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Mackintosh: Just 1.(b).

Mr. Chairperson: Just 1.(b) you are passing?

Mr. Mackintosh: Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: We are on 1.(c) Policy, Planning and Special Projects.

* (2330)

Mr. Mackintosh: I had just asked the question earlier of the minister as to what initiatives the government had in the works, was planning or what the government rejected to deal with repeat drunk drivers.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just take a moment to introduce Mr. Greg Yost who is the executive director of Policy and Planning who has now returned to the table.

He chairs a committee which is composed of Health, the Addictions Foundation, MPIC, Highways and police, and this representative committee is looking at ways to deal with repeat offenders or recidivism for drinking and driving. I am told that they are in the process of drafting a series of recommendations. I have not seen those recommendations yet. I expect to see them within the next few months, and certainly I will be looking at them carefully, because this government has taken a very strong stand on drinking and driving, and certainly we want to look at all other options that we can that will reduce people from being repeat offenders.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee what her position is on reducing the blood alcohol level from .08 to, say, .05 as recommended by CAID?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the issues that the committee chaired by the executive director of Policy and Planning is looking at. The ministers who would be responsible have had a meeting in which this issue was raised by CAID. I think we all recognize that the federal government controls the code and that really it can only be done by the federal government, the lowering of the blood alcohol level back to .05.

However, this committee that I have just spoken about, chaired by the executive director of Policy and Planning in which Health and the Addictions Foundation, MPIC and Highways and police are participating on, are also looking at this particular issue. I have not received a recommendation from them yet, but I will be looking forward to receiving that.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am wondering if the minister can now comment on how the seizure and impoundment registry is working and whether there have been major glitches discovered in that process.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, I am told that this seizure and impoundment registry system is in fact working quite well, but there are some areas which still require attention. That is another area this committee is working on.

I will just give the member an example of one of the issues which needs to be worked on. Where someone has a first offence, the seizure is for 30 days. The second offence, the seizure is for 60 days. As the member said, we do have some repeaters, the people who repeat, and perhaps are seized for a third time. So, we need to look at an overall strategy of how to deal with repeaters, or recidivists, and we also have to look at then how that will affect things such as the seizure and impoundment registry system and what we are going to do with people who in fact exceed the second time. So there are a number of areas in the system that we believe are working well. There still are some areas that will require continued looking at. That is exactly what we are doing now.

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister advise what the role of her department is in trying to secure a 911 system throughout Manitoba?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as the member knows, the lead minister on this area is the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay). He is the minister who has really been looking at the overall strategy. We have committed to the RCMP telecommunications system and sometimes there is some confusion between our commitment to that system and what that means. Is that a commitment to the overall rural 911? The rural 911 is the responsibility of the Minister of Highways and Transportation. I believe he has given some answers in relation to that in the Legislature, and certainly I am sure would elaborate in the course of his Estimates. For us our role, is somewhat unrelated though perhaps maybe useful, is our commitment to the RCMP telecommunications.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister want to talk about that RCMP telecommunications system now or do we do that under Policing?

Mrs. Vodrey: It probably would be best discussed under Policing when the appropriate staff, who have been working with it, are available.

* (2340)

Mr. Laurendeau: 1.(c) Policy, Planning and Special Projects (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $309,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $153,600--pass.

1.(d) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $971,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $234,200--pass.

1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $681,900.

Mr. Mackintosh: A few months ago I was asked by a reporter to comment on a situation involving alleged sexual harassment by a Crown attorney and a Legal Aid lawyer. I did not, of course, comment on the merits of the allegation because I knew nothing of the individuals or the allegation except what was described to me. What I did comment on and what I found disturbing, was the length of time it took for the department to deal with the complaint that was made by the Legal Aid lawyer to the department and specifically to the minister.

As I recall, it took months. If memory serves me right, I believe it was eight months it took for a response, not the initial response but the response which ended up in consequences for the Crown attorney.

I ask the minister how she can justify that lack of response, particularly given the mandate of her department in advancing the objectives of the zero tolerance policy. I want to know what mechanisms are in place in the department to deal with allegations of sexual harassment made against any employee in the department.

Mrs. Vodrey: I agree that the time frame, and I cannot confirm the time frame that the member has mentioned tonight, and I do not have the information before me to be able to confirm that time frame, but if he is raising an issue of this taking a long time, my understanding is that yes, it did take a fairly long time. I am concerned about that. I think it did take really a significant amount of time, but the member knows--I think he knows anyway, because I have talked about this before--that there was an investigation into this matter. The investigation was done by the civil service and the human resources area of our department and that the action was there was an attempt to mediate this.

So it took a certain amount of time, due to the process that was followed, but I would say that, though I cannot give an amount of time, my sense is that yes, this seemed to take quite a long time until there was really an end result achieved. So I will take that point he has raised and say to him that I share that concern, and we are certainly doing what we can to not have such a lengthy time.

He asks what happens under other circumstances or, in general, what we do, and it follows very much the same kind of a process in that others are involved other than the Department of Justice. There is an investigation. The investigation takes place with the human resources part of the Department of Justice, but that human resources area does act to investigate. Also, the civil service does an investigation, and then following that investigation, there is an action determined. That action is determined, by and large, by the civil service, whether or not there will be mediation or whether or not there may be some consequences which are required and which the civil service will recommend.

So that is what happens in general. I believe that is also what happened in the particular case which the member has spoken about, and I have agreed that the time frame is of a concern.

Mr. Mackintosh: I trust that the minister will take action and improve the systems in her office and in the department to expedite any such allegations.

I wonder what the Management Development for Women is on page 26 of the Supplementary Information book?

Mrs. Vodrey: This is a government-wide program and our department is very happy to participate. It is a program which provides opportunity for women who have a particular interest in moving ahead in government.

What happens in the program is that there is opportunity by training through the Civil Service Commission, and also placement, and our department is happy to participate in the program.

* (2350)

Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister tell the committee how many women are currently enrolled in the program?

Mrs. Vodrey: I presume the member means the number of women who are within the Department of Justice and who are taking part in this program, otherwise he would have to ask the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission (Mr. Toews) in terms of what is happening across all of government.

For the Department of Justice, I will take the question under advisement and get back to the member.

We can, at the moment, think of some women who have participated in the program and are currently in management positions, but we would like to get the accurate facts for him in terms of the number of women participating through the Department of Justice at the moment. So I will undertake to do that.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee how women in the department become familiar with this program offering?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chair, as I said, this is a program of the Civil Service Commission. To my knowledge, the Civil Service Commission is the one who advertises or circulates information about this program. The member may want to ask that minister more details.

For our part, we are certainly available when this information has been received and women are interested in participating. We will gladly provide them further information that we have and look and see how we can assist them in terms of taking part in this program, but I would remind him again it is a program operated through the civil service. We are a co-operating department and are glad to be that.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the government have any way of measuring whether the department's Affirmative Action program has met its objectives?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Chairman, the statistics from the Department of Justice are collected yearly. Those statistics are passed on to the Civil Service Commission, and the Civil Service Commission is responsible for collecting statistics from all across government. We collect statistics in terms of numbers of employees, male employees, female, native employees, disabled and visible minority, and we have had some concentration in the area of native employees and Affirmative Action particularly in response to recognition of the needs of aboriginal people in the justice system.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister share with the committee the full statistics for the last, I do not know, say, the last for years? I just needed a number of years so that we can see what trends are developing.

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, I will be pleased to provide the statistics to the member, and there is additional detail, if that would be helpful to him. Rather than read the statistics of each area into the record this evening, I will be pleased simply to provide it to the member, and he can have a look at it, and actually visually look at it as opposed to just having to hear it, if that is agreeable to him?

Mr. Mackintosh: I look forward to getting the information. I also wonder if the minister could provide the objectives that have been established for the department's Affirmative Action program?

Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we can provide him with what has been set as targets and show our process of working towards meeting those.

Mr. Mackintosh: Pass.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 1.(e) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $681,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $135,700--pass.

1.(f) Computer Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $762,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $414,500--pass.

We will now move on to Resolution 4, 2. Public Prosecutions (a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,722,000.

The hour being 12 midnight, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

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