* (1450)

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $470,600 on page 107 of the Estimates book.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I was on last date responding to some questions that were put to me by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). In particular, he raised some issues that I think should be dealt with very clearly and in some detail on the record.

The first issue relates to a particular Crown attorney that he appears to have some concerns about. I want to put some information on the record in defence of that Crown attorney. The Crown attorney referred to was a Ms. Mary Goska, who is responsible for provincial statute prosecutions. Ms. Goska was called to the bar in 1993. She practised as a member of the private bar from 1993 to 1996. In January of 1997, she was hired by the Department of Justice to assist with youth prosecutions. She then applied for and was the successful candidate of a competition and began prosecuting provincial statute cases in July of 1997.

During the past year, in the course of providing opinions on charges and in subsequent court proceedings, Ms. Goska has dealt with a number of significant matters. These matters have been notable by virtue of the nature of the allegations and the resulting dispositions. For example, in the past year Ms. Goska has dealt with a number of prosecutions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act where the circumstances involved either a death or very serious injuries. In all of these cases, convictions were registered and significant fines were imposed.

In R. vs. Pine Falls Paper Company, a matter disposed of in January 1998, Ms. Goska was successful in obtaining convictions with fines imposed amounting to $15,840. I understand that is one of the highest amounts ever registered under that act in terms of amounts of fines.

In the past year, Ms. Goska has participated on the summary conviction review act committee. Most recently Ms. Goska conducted a presentation at the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, and 45 employees of the branch were in attendance. Ms. Goska's presentation included a discussion of the prosecution process, the evidence necessary to sustain convictions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, defences available to accused persons, the importance of statements and how they are used in court, how the plea arrangement process works, and how judges decide on fines.

I would like to also note that there were comments made by staff from Workplace Safety and Health. One such comment is from Garry Hildebrand, who is the director of Workplace Safety and Health Branch. He writes in an e-mail to Ms. Goska regarding WSH Branch presentation. He states: I just wanted to thank you for speaking to my staff yesterday. Your presentation was thorough and to the point. You did a great job. I appreciated you taking the time. Thanks. Garry Hildebrand, director of Workplace Safety and Health Branch.

I know Mr. Hildebrand. I know of his competence. I have worked with Mr. Hildebrand in the past. Certainly those types of commendations from men of Mr. Hildebrand's calibre speak volumes.

I want to indicate that she has conducted in 1998 seven prosecutions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. In 1999 she has participated in three prosecutions to date. I am also aware of the fact that when she prepares opinions she is incredibly thorough, certainly the opinion that I have been able to see. In reading it, it speaks volumes of the competence of this particular individual.

Mr. Reid also raised a concern in respect of a case involving Poulin's Exterminators. I recall this case, as an example. I remember it was either in the House or outside of the House where I indicated to Mr. Reid that in fact if he had any concerns about that particular prosecution that I would set up a meeting for Mr. Reid with senior staff.

Now, Mr. Reid has indicated, the member for Transcona–I believe in committee I am allowed to refer to the name–Mr. Reid has indicated his genuine concern about this issue. I simply want to question that concern. I think that he disappointed me, he disappointed my staff, and I think he disappointed the people that he claims to be speaking on behalf of.

I made the request of my staff, and my staff indicates that following at least two telephone conversations or calls to his office, Mr. Finlayson set up a meeting with Mr. Reid for July 15 at 9 p.m. Mr. Reid simply did not attend. On July 16, this matter was discussed. Mr. Reid never returned the calls. He never cancelled the meeting nor did he send regrets after missing the meeting. After that, the department, and I think prudently so, advised that the issue was now with Mr. Reid to contact my office for a follow-up to the issue that was so important, which he was so concerned about, and then he misses a meeting that busy Crown attorneys set up to accommodate him to explain this situation. He missed it for no apparent reason, sent no regrets, no explanation of his nonattendance.

I also want to put on the record an explanation of why that case was proceeded in the way it was. There is a suggestion somehow that the Crown was not careful in this particular case. Well, what I can indicate for the record is that following the incident that Mr. Reid was purportedly so concerned about yet did not have the common courtesy to call my office, it involved two workers of Poulin's having been exposed to injurious levels of an industrial toxin, methyl bromide.

Members of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch commenced an investigation to determine the cause. Approximately one month later, the Workplace Safety and Health Branch forwarded the preliminary results of that investigation to the Crown attorney in order to seek charges. After some correspondence back and forth, one of the Crown attorneys authorized four charges as against an agent of Poulin's, a director of Poulin's, Poulin's itself and also a charge in respect of failing to co-operate with Workplace Safety and Health investigators.

The above charges were laid, these four different charges, and the Workplace Safety and Health Branch continued its investigation of the matter with the result that on April 26, 1996, a member of Workplace Safety and Health sent a memorandum to the prosecuting attorney seeking additional charges pursuant to the regulations underlying The Workplace Safety and Health Act. On May 17 of the same year, a Crown attorney authorized the laying of 10 additional charges pursuant to the regulations, all as against the corporate entity Poulin's, with the result that there were now 14 charges stemming from the incident itself and ensuing events.

* (1500)

The additional charges were in essence–I will take it, then, these 10 charges: failing to provide proper equipment in respect of one employee; the second one failing to provide proper equipment to another employee, those two charges related to the ventilation system; another two charges in respect of those two employees in respect of failing to provide proper monitoring equipment; then in respect of two other charges but the same employees, again failing to provide proper equipment, this time dealing with protective clothing; then another two charges again dealing with failing to provide proper equipment in respect of the same employees' respiratory equipment; and then another two charges in respect of the same employees failing to provide proper training to those employees in the handling of methyl bromide.

It should be noted that both counts one and four relate to a failure to co-operate with the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. Counts two and three relate to a failure to notify the Workplace Safety and Health Branch of the accident. Counts five to 12 all relate to essentially the same subject matter, and that is equipment. Counts 13 and 14 both relate to a failure to train workers. The Crown notes that counts five, six, seven, eight, nine and 10, et cetera, are simply duplications of the one charge, the same charge, one each for the injured workers. Essentially, the acts complained of can be halved then from 14 to seven either by virtue of two counts charging the same act against different entitities or by virtue of the same act as against two separate victims. In the result, if pleas were entered, it would be for seven acts rather than 14.

In reviewing counts five through 12, all relating to failure to provide adequate equipment, the Crown determined that the ultimate reason for the workers' exposure was that they had no way of knowing that they were being exposed to injurious levels of methyl bromide, so this was, in the Crown attorney's opinion, the best count to proceed upon. The Crown also notes that there were some very serious difficulties in proving some of the counts.

It is all well and good to stand up in the House and criticize the Crown attorney for making a professional decision. It is unfortunate that the member would make those criticisms and then not even have the courtesy to come and see the Crown as to why they proceeded in a particular way. In consultation with representatives of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, the resolution that was arrived at was the guilty pleas to one equipment count, failing to train and failing to notify. So you have the three counts which essentially encompass the acts complained of.

So at the time of these offences, the legislation provided for a maximum of a $15,000 fine, and in terms of the levies imposed by the courts, the typical fine ranged from a reprimand to $1,000. In Poulin's case, the fine on the count three was $500, on count seven was $2,500 and on count 13, $2,500. The latter two fines are more than double that which the courts traditionally treated as a high end of the range for similar offences.

The other point that one has to remember is that when the New Democratic government brought this legislation in, they said the reason they were bringing it in, the drafter of this legislation, was that they wanted to emphasize things other than prosecutions, and I remember that very clearly. This act was supposed to deal with matters outside of prosecutions, and there was an emphasis that was on matters that would decrease the numbers of deaths and injuries. So the whole focus was not to prosecute but rather to educate. So the sheer hypocrisy of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) to stand up and say he is not satisfied with the prosecution results, aside from the fact of the philosophy behind the act which the prior NDP government brought in, and then he did not even have the courtesy to go and talk to the Crown attorneys. So I think I wanted to leave that on the record to clarify very clearly what the situation was in respect of this particular case.

The other point that the member raised which I intend to go into again in some detail is he indicated that there does not appear to be any policies. The fact of the matter is this is a member who chose not to attend a meeting, who chose not to ask questions of my staff, and then in a very broad, general way makes accusations that simply are not borne out by the facts. I know that there are a number of policies, and the policies relating to the Manitoba Crown attorneys are, in fact, public. They are public policy manuals. They set out the policies that guide our prosecutors in their conduct.

I have had a number of them identified, and I think it is very important to put on the record in a substantive way what, in fact, some of these policies are. The ones that I wish to deal with are the code of conduct, the laying of charges, the staying of charges and the philosophy of the Crown in respect of what has been commonly referred to as plea bargaining. I want to talk about exactly that and what that means, and I would be surprised if no other jurisdiction had a policy on the issue of plea bargaining, given that it is often controversial but a necessary practice in our courts because of the way the police may charge or subsequent facts that come up later on or issues related to the proof of a particular charge.

The first one then is September 1990, the Crown attorneys Code of Professional Conduct. It states: the Crown attorneys first obligation is to act as Minister of Justice and, second, as independent adversary within the criminal justice system and to see that, as far as it is possible for him or her to do so, justice is done and has appeared to be done.

With respect to the public, the Crown attorneys shall: foster respect for rights, freedoms, the law and the Constitution of Canada, conduct himself or herself in a manner consistent with the public interest, attempt to ensure that public money and resources are used in an efficient and economical manner.

* (1510)

With respect to the court, the Crown attorney shall: never misrepresent or fail to disclose something that is material to the court; exhibit respect for the court by (a) attempting to start on time; (b) having available all relevant information; (c) dressing appropriately for the court; (d) addressing the bench in a respectful manner; (e) dealing politely and courteously with court staff; (f) conducting prosecutions in a dignified manner; (g) being as fully prepared for court as circumstances permit and attempt to ensure that court services are used judiciously, for example, not ordering unnecessary transcripts, notification of court cancellation in advance, et cetera.

With respect to an accused person, the Crown attorney shall attempt to ensure a fair trial for the accuse; shall ensure the accused has an opportunity to have counsel represent them or is aware of the existence of the legal aid scheme in Manitoba if he or she is impecunious; proceed with prosecutions as expeditiously as possible; respect the confidentiality of information about an accused person received in the course of his or her professional duties; not discriminate against an accused person on the basis of race, ethnicity, language, sex, age or religion; be conscious of whether an accused person requires an interpreter and facilitate the provision of one if required; in dealing with an underrepresented accused, not accept a guilty plea unless confident that the accused understands the implications thereof.

With respect to complainants and witnesses, the Crown attorney shall prepare witnesses for testifying in court; employ sensitivity in dealing with complaints; return telephone calls of complainants and witnesses as promptly as possible; endeavour to ensure that witnesses are not kept waiting needlessly or without explanation and cancelled in a timely fashion where not required; where appropriate, explain the outcome or potential outcome of a prosecution to the complainant if requested, for example, cases involving children, family violence, homicide or so on, require extra sensitivity; and, respect the confidentiality of information received from complainants if the information is not material to the charge against the accused.

With respect to defence counsel, the Crown attorney shall deal in a courteous, ethical and professional manner with defence counsel, for example, not take advantage of or consciously attempt to intimidate inexperienced defence counsel; shall not allow personal feelings to interfere in dealings with defence counsel; shall honour all agreements with defence counsel as well as respect agreements entered into by colleagues, the latter being subject to review by the appropriate senior Crown attorney in the event of disagreement; and, return the telephone calls of defence counsel as promptly as possible.

With respect to the police, the Crown attorney shall afford due respect to the recommendations and advice of experienced police officers but recognize that all legal decisions are solely the independent responsibility of the prosecutor; give careful, current and impartial legal advice upon request in a timely way; not become actively involved in the investigation; not recommend or authorize charges which have no reasonable expectation of conviction or which are not in the public interest; bring to the attention of the appropriate senior Crown attorney any allegation of wrongdoing or improper conduct on the part of any police officer.

With respect to the conduct of a case, in conducting a prosecution, the Crown attorney shall make full and fair disclosure of all relevant evidence as soon as possible or when requested by defence counsel; call or make defence counsel aware of all material witnesses to the incident in question; disclose all statements, documents and exhibits as required to ensure a fair trial; resist pressure to lay more charges than are appropriate or charges more serious than those presented by the facts; never offer personal opinion but rather make submissions based on the evidence before the court; be alert to and report defence counsel to the appropriate senior Crown attorney who allow their duty to their client to override their duty to the court and to the administration of justice.

With respect to colleagues, the Crown attorney shall attempt to foster an atmosphere of congeniality in the workplace that is appreciative of one another's strengths and tolerant of perceived differences; honour agreements made by a colleague; and where disagreement cannot be resolved, refer the matter to the appropriate senior Crown attorney; whenever possible, assist another Crown attorney or relieve them when requested to do so; offer assistance when it appears that a colleague requires such assistance or requests it; ensure that unfavourable criticism of the professional activity of a colleague is made in confidence to the appropriate sources; not speak in a negative fashion about the professional abilities of a colleague to a person inside or outside the department; contribute to the education and professional development of more inexperienced colleagues; not diminish the offer made by a colleague to defence counsel unless there has been a change in circumstances since the making of the first offer or unless the matter has been discussed with a colleague and/or referred to the appropriate senior Crown attorney in the event of disagreement; if unable to attend court due to sickness or other like reason, provide supervisors with as much notice as possible; ensure that the course of a particular matter be clearly outlined on the file in a manner that is understandable by colleagues who deal with the matter subsequently.

In dealing with public attention, the Crown attorney shall take reasonable care to distinguish between public statements made and actions performed as a representative of the Crown and those done as a private citizen; not seek out media attention or provide unsolicited comments to the media or publicly express personal views of any verdict; never disclose confidential departmental information; defer to a superior or supervisor if uncertain how to respond properly to media questions.

Duties to self in the profession: the Crown attorney shall declare any actual or apparent conflict of interest and seek written instructions through the appropriate senior Crown attorney from his or her director; make a continuing effort to improve professionally; always conduct himself or herself in an honourable manner in court as well as out of court; accept that his or her personal life is a private matter unless he or she engages in conduct unbecoming to a representative of the Crown; observe not only the specific rules of the code but also observe the spirit of the code.

I think in terms of that particular policy, that is all I want to say.

In respect of the laying of charges, I think it is also very important, clearly directly related to the issues raised by Mr. Reid, the member for Transcona. This policy statement on the laying of charges, the two full tests for prosecutorial discretion to proceed with or to instruct that charges be instituted is whether or not there exists a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it is not contrary to the public interest to proceed. I think that is well recognized in Canadian law as the appropriate test. Moreover, the following policy instructions obtain immediately, and this was dated also February 1, 1990.

Number one, the police have the ultimate right and duty to determine the form and content of charges to be laid in any particular case according to their best judgment, subject to the Crown's right to withdraw or stay the charges after they have been laid. Number two, the following protocol governs the resolution of disputes between police and Crown counsel over the laying of charges: (i) No charge shall be laid contrary to the advice of a Crown prosecutor until discussion concerning the matter has taken place between the police department and the Crown prosecutor. (ii) If there is no resolution of the disagreement at that level, the matter must be referred to a senior police official of the department who will discuss the matter with the appropriate director of prosecutions. (iii) If following such discussion the police remain of the view that a charge is warranted, the charge should be laid.

I realize that I have much more to say, but my time is rapidly coming to the end. But should questions touch upon this matter, I will continue in respect of the allegation that was made that we have no appropriate training for particular Crown attorneys or no appropriate laying of charges. So the other policies, the one with respect to the staying of charges, is dated February 1, 1990, and the last one on the practice and the published practice, I should state, of the issue of plea bargaining or plea arrangements is dated October 10, 1990. Again, all of these are public, but if need be, I will read those into the record, as well.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I know the minister has been sharing some information with this committee. Unfortunately, I was distracted for a few moments, attending to the business involving Bill 33 and the Workers Compensation widows who are in the building today to see that bill receive Royal Assent. But I do note that the minister has made some comments about the actions of his department and that he has referenced about how the Crown has handled certain cases, Workplace Safety and Health cases that have come before the courts.

I do note that the minister has said that in the past, when he was the previous Minister of Labour, The Workplace Safety and Health Act should be for education and not prosecution. That is a stand that he always took, and it seems like he is saying the same thing here again today. I do note for the record though that the minister perhaps wants to re-evaluate his position with respect to prosecution, considering that Manitoba in the last two years has had–and this is not my information; this comes directly from the Workers Compensation Board. We, in this province, have the highest lost time accident rate in Canada, and we have the highest number of fatalities per 100,000 workers in this country, as well.

So you can see that your education program is working very, very effectively, and that, of course, you do not want to look at or consider prosecutions as a deterrent. I would think that you would want to, considering the statistics that the Workers Compensation Board has just released to the committee and to the minister, I am sure, who is privy to that information as well. Perhaps, the minister can explain why the Crown, because he said that the Poulin's case was handled very effectively, dropped 11 of the 14 charges or stayed 11 of the 14 charges or plea bargained 11 of the 14 charges that were laid against Poulin's in the first place. Why would you take such a step to lay the charges and then not deem them to be effective enough or interested enough in those charges to proceed with them through the courts and let the courts make a determination on the charges?

* (1520)

Mr. Toews: It is unfortunate that we have to go through this after having given my request to him that, in fact, he could meet with my staff to in fact talk about this particular issue. In fact, he was offered a meeting, and in fact he did not attend. Mr. Reid simply did not attend the meeting that had been set up, arranged with him. He never returned the calls, he never cancelled the meeting, and he never sent regrets after missing the meeting. So, at that point, of course, the department, and properly so, indicated that the issue was now with Mr. Reid. If Mr. Reid, the member for Transcona, was that interested in this case, you would think he would have had the courtesy to attend the meeting, and if he had some conflict, at least send his regrets after missing the meeting. So, after my staff had gone to all the trouble to set up that meeting, I find it quite unbelievable that the member would come in here then and make these kinds of comments as though he has been concerned about this issue in any genuine way.

The explanation as to why pleas were accepted to three counts of 14 relative to the incident on December 19, 1995, are as follows: following the incident which involved two workers of Poulin's having been exposed to injurious levels of an industrial toxin, namely methyl bromide, members of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch commenced an investigation to determine the cause. Approximately one month later the Workplace Safety and Health Branch forwarded the preliminary results of that investigation to the Crown seeking charges.

After some correspondence back and forth, the Crown authorized four charges as against, No. 1, Mr. Robert Acheson as agent for Poulin's for failing to co-operate with the Workplace Safety and Health Branch investigators; No. 2, Donald Poulin, as a director of Poulin's for failing to notify the Workplace Safety and Health Branch of a serious accident; No. 3, Poulin's Exterminators for failing to notify the Workplace Safety and Health Branch of a serious accident; and No. 4, Poulin's for failing to co-operate with the Workplace Safety and Health Branch investigators.

The above charges were laid, and the Workplace Safety and Health Branch continued its investigation of the matter with the result that on April 26, 1996, a representative of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch memoed the prosecuting attorney seeking additional charges pursuant to the regulations underlying The Workplace Safety and Health Act. On May 17, 1996, the Crown authorized the laying of 10 additional charges pursuant to the regulations, all as against the corporate entity Poulin's, with the result that there were now 14 charges stemming from the incident itself and ensuing events.

The additional charges were in essence, and starting with then count 5, having previously indicated the prior four counts: count 5, failing to provide proper equipment relating to the ventilation system to ensure the safety of one of the workers; count 6, failing to provide proper equipment, a ventilation system to ensure safety of a second worker; count 7, failing to provide proper monitoring equipment to ensure safety of the first worker–that is, the worker mentioned in count 5; count 8, failing to provide proper monitoring equipment to ensure the safety of the second worker; count 9, failing to provide proper equipment, protective clothing, to ensure safety of its worker, the first worker, that is, the one set out in count 5; count 10, failing to provide proper equipment, protective clothing, to ensure safety of the second worker; count 11, failing to provide proper respiratory equipment to ensure safety of the first worker; count 12, failing to provide proper respiratory equipment to ensure safety of the second worker; count 13, failing to provide proper training to the first worker in the handling of methyl bromide; count 14, failing to provide proper training to the second worker in the handling of methyl bromide.

It should be noted that counts 1 and 4 both relate to a failure to co-operate with the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. Counts 2 and 3 both relate to a failure to notify the Workplace Safety and Health Branch of the accident. Counts 5 to 12 all relate to essentially the same subject matter, and that is the equipment. Counts 13 and 14 both relate to a failure to train its workers, and counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the same charges but in respect of each of the injured workers. In fact, the Crown could have laid one charge against relating to both workers. So, essentially the acts complained of can be halved from 14 to seven either by virtue of two counts charging the same act against different entities or by virtue of the same act as against two separate victims. In the result, if pleas were to be entered, it would be for seven acts rather than 14.

In reviewing counts 5 through 12, all relating to failing to provide adequate equipment, the Crown determined that the ultimate reason for the workers' exposure was that they had no way of knowing they would be exposed to injurious levels of methyl bromide so that this was the best count to proceed on.

The Crown also indicates that there were very serious difficulties in proving some of the counts, and it is very well and good to stand up in the House and criticize the professional opinion of someone who has actually got to go in to prove these cases. I think that the member should have taken the time at least to talk to the Crown attorney after the Crown attorney had gone to some difficulty in terms of setting up a meeting, which the member simply refused to attend for his own reasons, whatever they were. If they were valid reasons, he could have at least phoned and let them know.

* (1530)

In consultation with representatives of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, they both jointly arrived at a resolution which indicated that appropriately there could be guilty pleas to one equipment count, one failing to train and one failing to notify. It should be pointed out that at the time of these offences the legislation provided for a maximum of $15,000 per count, which, again, was consistent with the NDP philosophy that this was not to be an act where prosecutions were to be stressed, it was more educational. It was our government who changed the maximum fine, I believe now to $150,000.

In terms of actual levies imposed by the courts, the typical fine ranged between a reprimand and $1,000, and Poulin's was fined, for count 3, $500; count 7, $2,500; and count 13, $2,500. The latter two fines are more than double that which the courts traditionally treated as a high end of the range for similar offences.

Now, the member says: why would you take the pleas? I was proceeding on the policies. I had talked about the general policies and I also, in answer to the last question, talked about Ms. Goska. If the member wants further information on the expertise and the good work that Ms. Goska has been doing, I can again deal with that as well.

In respect of the whole issue of plea bargaining, I think it is very important to look at the role of that particular practice, which is practised right across Canada and which is a necessary part of the administration of justice but, clearly, given the potential for abuse, it is always important to remember the policy and to ensure that the decisions are made within the general context of the policy.

So the policy that has been established well in advance of this particular case is dated October 10, 1990. This is a public policy, so the member could review this from time to time, but I think it is important to put it into the record.

The policy indicates that in order to minimize public expense, inconvenience to witnesses, and the backlog of criminal prosecutions, Crown counsel should facilitate discussions with defence counsel with a view to avoiding unnecessary litigation. Such discussions may result in Crown counsel and defence counsel reaching an agreement respecting the charge or charges to which an accused person will plead guilty and/or the sentence that will be recommended to the court. In arriving at such agreements, Crown counsel must balance the rights of the accused, the public interest, and the interests of the victim.

The following principles should govern plea bargaining:

Number 1, the institution of criminal proceedings should involve the selection of the appropriate charge or charges based upon a consideration of the legal requirements of same and the availability of admissible evidence in support thereof. Thus a careful examination of the police investigation reports and the provisions of the relevant charging legislation is required. Crown counsel should not approve excessive counts in an information merely to influence an accused to plead guilty to some of the counts, nor should charges be laid where it is known that the evidence in support thereof is of an unreliable nature or where the jurisprudence clearly indicates that the facts will not support the charges.

Number 2, Crown counsel should only accept pleas of guilty to offences supported by the facts established by the police investigation.

Number 3, a plea bargain may involve acceptance by Crown counsel of offers of guilty pleas to lesser charges or withdrawal of some charges in exchange for guilty pleas to the balance of charges where such agreements are based on proper consideration of the nature and quality of the evidence available in support of the prosecution of a multiplicity of charges which have been laid as a result of a single delict. Now, in fact, that is exactly the information that I have read into the record already. There were essentially three delicts that were pled to and, apparently, that was the appropriate way to proceed. I certainly have not reviewed all of the evidence, but I am going to accept the word of the particular prosecutor.

Number 4, Crown counsel may accept with defence counsel to adopt a particular position on the matter of sentence. This may involve agreeing to make no recommendation respecting sentence; agreeing to recommend a certain kind of sentence, that is, fine or imprisonment; agreement to recommend a sentence within a certain range, that is, respecting the severity of a fine or the length of a term of imprisonment; or agreeing to recommend a specific sentence such as a fine in a specified amount or a specified term of imprisonment. Other kinds of agreements may be made as well depending upon the circumstances of the case.

Number 4, no agreement should be made on the basis of convenience or expediency. Nevertheless, Crown counsel may enter into an agreement in order to avoid a trial where this is done for the purpose of limiting the backlog of criminal prosecutions. Such an agreement may expose the offender to a lesser penal sanction than he might otherwise face upon conviction at trial, provided the agreement involves a result which is reasonable in light of the circumstances of the offence or offences and of the background of the offender.

Number 6, it is proper for Crown counsel to make arrangements respecting pleas or sentence with a view to avoiding an unsuccessful prosecution. Thus, for example, where deficiencies in the available evidence create a substantial likelihood of acquittal, it is appropriate for Crown counsel to agree to pleas of guilty to lesser but related charges or agree to recommend a less severe sentence than would otherwise be sought provided such agreement does not tend to bring the administration of criminal justice into disrepute. Note that this mode of conviction is no more foolproof than full trial in the courts. There is an overriding duty of fairness in the prosecutor. The accused should not be overcharged or a plea extorted on the basis of a more serious charge which may have a skimpy factual underpinning.

Number 7, though very rare, there are situations where a Crown counsel may properly decide to stay proceedings or withdraw charges on compassionate or humanitarian grounds or in cases where the system of criminal justice would be brought into disrepute by the furtherance of a particular prosecution.

Number 8, Crown counsel should not agree not to appeal whatever sentence the judge imposes in exchange for a guilty plea.

Number 9, Crown counsel should not agree to sanitize or play down certain facts in exchange for a guilty plea. All of the facts relating to the incident which can be proven, which are of significance must be disclosed to the judge.

Number 10, Crown counsel should not agree to withhold information regarding the offender's criminal record in exchange for a guilty plea.

Number 11, Crown counsel should not agree to deal with a matter at a time other than the normal court time in order to avoid media coverage.

Number 12, Crown counsel prosecuting in Provincial Court should not attempt to bind the Crown attorney in prosecuting the matter in the Court of Queen's Bench on matters of plea or sentence. Crown counsel prosecuting in Provincial Court may, however, agree to the committal of an accused to Queen's Bench without a preliminary hearing where defence counsel undertakes that the accused will plead guilty to an agreed charge or charges. In such cases, no agreements can be made respecting sentence by the Provincial Court Crown attorney.

Number 13, Crown counsel should not agree to recommend a specific sentence where it is understood that a presentence report will be ordered. Crown counsel may, however, agree to make no specific recommendation as to sentence or to not recommend a sentence more severe than the circumstances of the offence and the known background of the offender would warrant, even where a presentence report is to be ordered.

Number 14, the judiciary should not generally be brought into the bargaining process. Thus it is generally not appropriate for counsel for the Crown and the accused to make representations jointly outside of court. I assume that that is to the judiciary. Rare exceptions may exist where information critical to the sentencing process should not be subjected to the scrutiny of an open courtroom. Such situations might include instances where a psychiatric report respecting the accused contained information which could adversely affect innocent people or the accused where there is medical information which should remain confidential, such as the existence of a terminal illness of the accused, et cetera.

* (1540)

Number 15, Crown counsel who are doubtful about the appropriateness of a contemplated agreement should consult with senior Prosecutions staff. In particular, all homicide cases in which a reduction of charge is sought must first be discussed with the appropriate senior Crown attorney.

So those then deal with plea bargaining generally. The staying of charges, which of course is very relevant here as well and I think should also be referred to, is a policy directive dated February 1, 1990, as well. It is headed Staying, Withdrawing or Forbearing to Lay Charges. It indicates statutory and common-law basis for the exercise of discretion to stop or prevent prosecutions as found in the Criminal Code and in the leading authorities of Blasgow and the Queen 1976, 33 CRNS, 227 Ontario; also K. Chasse, The Crown's Power to Withdraw Charges 1976, 36 CR, Criminal Reports New Series 218; also the Queen and Karpinsky 1957, 117 Canadian Criminal Cases, 241 Supreme Court of Canada, and so on.

Public interest factors in deciding to withdraw or stop a prosecution even in the face of evidence which would sustain a conviction include:

Number 1, the triviality of the alleged offence or that it is of a technical nature only.

Number 2, the age, physical health, mental health or special infirmity of an alleged offender or witness.

Number 3, the staleness of an alleged offence.

Number 4, the degree of culpability of the alleged offender, particularly in relation to other alleged parties to the offence.

Number 5, the likely effect of a prosecution on public order, morale.

Number 6, the obsolescence or obscurity of the law.

Number 7, where the prosecution would be perceived as counterproductive.

Number 8, the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution in light of the purposes of the criminal sanction.

Number 9, the prevalence of the alleged offence and any related need for deterrence.

Number 10, whether the consequences of any resulting conviction would be unduly harsh or oppressive.

Number 11, the attitude of the victim of the alleged offence to the prosecution.

Number 12, the likely length and expense of a trial.

Number 13, whether the alleged offender is willing to co-operate in the investigation or prosecution of others or the extent to which he or she has already done so.

Number 14, the likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt having regard to the sentencing options available to the court.

The factors which are to be excluded from consideration in determining whether the public interest requires a prosecution include:

Number 1, the alleged offender's race, religion, sex, national origin, political association or beliefs.

Number 2, the prosecutor's personal feelings concerning the victim or the alleged offender.

Number 3, any partisan political advantage or disadvantage which might flow from the decision to undertake or stop a prosecution, or;

Number 4, the possible effect on the personal or professional circumstances of those responsible for the prosecution decision.

Where the prosecutor decides not to undertake or to stop a prosecution by reason of a public interest factor such as those mentioned above, a notation of this decision must be placed in the file relating to the case in question. Where reasons of the public interest and the administration of justice do not demand otherwise and the stay or withdrawal occurs in a court of record, the reasons shall be stated by the Crown prosecutor.

So those then relate to the staying of charges. I have already talked about the laying of the charges in answer to some of the questions that were made earlier.

The other point that the member raised last date, and by inference in his question today again, deals with the code of conduct of a prosecutor. I think it is, again, very important to reiterate the very important standards that a Crown attorney must meet in respect of professional conduct. There are a number of considerations that the prosecutor must take into account. The Crown attorney's first obligation is to act as Minister of Justice, and, second, as independent adversary within the criminal justice system and to see that, as far as it is possible for her or him to do so, justice is done and has appeared to be done.

There are a number of headings that I want to briefly make reference to, first of all, because again the member indicated are there not any policies governing these issues, and if I have an opportunity, I will go through each and every one of the policies in this book, because to infer somehow that the Crowns make these decisions in an unregulated way, in an inappropriate way without recourse to some document I think is doing a grave miscarriage to the administrators in the department, indeed to the Crown attorneys themselves.

There are a number of topics and duties that the Crown Attorney has. They are with respect to the public, with respect to the court, with respect to an accused person, with respect to complainants and witnesses, with respect to defence counsel, with respect to the police, with respect to conduct of a case, with respect to colleagues and in dealing with public attention, also duties to self and the profession.

I want to start by highlighting a number of these. Many of these, I might indicate, in respect of the complainants and witnesses, the heading that I have referred to, have already been codified in legislation, and I think very importantly so, in our victims protection act, but what the policy at page 2 indicates is that with respect to complainants and witnesses, the Crown attorney shall: prepare witnesses for testifying in court; employ sensitivity in dealing with complainants; return telephone calls of complainants and witnesses as promptly as possible; endeavour to ensure that witnesses are not kept waiting needlessly or without explanation and cancelled in a timely fashion where not required; also, where appropriate, explain the outcome or potential outcome of a prosecution to the complainant, if requested. For example, cases involving children, family violence, homicide, or so, on require extra sensitivity.

Also, in this particular case, not only did the member particularly ask to be advised of this particular information, but, in fact, there were numerous attempts to advise the member of the state of affairs. I know that he raised this matter in Question Period, and I indicated in Question Period that in respect to a request that he asked me, and that would have been that he indicated that he wanted to have some information on the use of methyl bromide, the Minister of Environment at the time, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), indicated that he would ascertain the role of the Department of Environment in this matter and report to him.

The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) then raised a question to me as the Minister of Justice, and what he asked was: was your department informed by the Department of Environment of this matter? I will table copies of the penalty section that applies to this case. My answer at that time was as follows: Madam Speaker, as the member last indicated that there were a number of charges laid against Poulin's, I assume that the Crown attorneys looked at the best charges in respect of this particular situation.

I indicated and again, quote: I know that the Crown attorney in the particular case has provided me with a briefing, and I would advise the member that if he wants a detailed explanation of the reasons why the Crown took the position they did in this very, very serious case, I know that the Crown or other members of my department would be more than ready to sit down with the member in order to give him the true facts of this situation.

* (1550)

The offer was then, in fact, made to him. I requested my staff to set up this meeting because, obviously, the member, one would think, in raising this question on a serious case, would be interested in the outcome of this. So, in fact, a meeting was set up for July 15 at 9 a.m., and he simply did not attend. The member never returned the calls. He never phoned to cancel the meeting, nor did he send regrets after missing the meeting. The department then simply said that we will leave it to the member to contact. Now he has, I guess, the courage to come up and ask about this case and ask exactly the same questions he was asking in the House over a year ago. Over a year now he has not concerned himself about the case; he has not come to the department and said what happened or why did you not show up at the meeting, when in fact he knows that he was the person who did not show up at the meeting. Perhaps that is why he has not come back to the department to ask about why in fact he did not show up.

I also want to make note that there was a letter sent to him July 16, 1998, which I received a copy of on July 21, 1998, from the then Minister of Environment, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae). A copy of that was also sent to the former Minister of Labour. It deals with the whole question of the December 1995 application of methyl bromide by the employees of N. L. Poulin Limited.

Mr. Reid: It has been an interesting rant that the minister has been on for the last half hour. He has, of course, quoted from a number of documents in front of him, Mr. Chairperson. I think it is only appropriate that when members of the Legislative Assembly do quote from the documents that they actually table those documents. I am making that request here now.

Mr. Toews: They are public documents, and I will get the member copies of those documents.

Mr. Reid: I appreciate that, and I hope that the minister will table all of the documents that he has quoted from here today.

Mr. Toews: They are public documents, and I have no reason not to quote them and table them.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that undertaking. When we were in Committee of Supply yesterday, I had asked questions with respect to training for the individual who, the Minister of Labour says, is a special prosecutor assigned to Workplace Safety and Health cases, but of course this minister confirmed yesterday that the individual is not assigned to all of the cases, that there are other prosecutors handling Workplace Safety and Health prosecutions. I would like to know, because I did ask the question yesterday with respect to training, what training this individual has to lend to further education of how to handle cases like that and the sensitivity of them with respect to the families that are involved, and others in the workplace that are involved in these matters to make sure that individual is current with what would be expected of someone prosecuting Workplace Safety and Health cases. I am wondering if the minister can define for me or describe for me why his prosecutor in the Poulin case because of the seriousness of the case did not ask for the maximum fines. In fact, from my recollection, no one in his department in Prosecutions has ever asked for maximum fines with respect to Workplace Safety and Health prosecutions.

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, I think that my staff is finding any relevant material on staff training, but I think it is important to specifically talk about the particular prosecutor that the member referred to last date. The suggestion that these are not somehow qualified prosecutors is, I think, a sad misunderstanding of the quality of the type of prosecutors that we have in the department.

First of all, the member has to understand, of course, that the prosecutors are trained lawyers and they are qualified lawyers. This particular prosecutor, Ms. Goska, that he referred to yesterday in charge of provincial statute prosecutions was called to the bar in 1993. She practised as a member of a private firm from 1993 until 1996. She was hired on a term basis by the Department of Justice in January of 1997 to assist with the youth prosecutions. She applied for and was the successful candidate of a competition. So again we note that there was a competition for a position. She began prosecuting provincial statute cases in July of 1997. This was not simply the hiring of somebody without competition.

During the past years in the course of providing opinions on charges and in subsequent court proceedings, Ms. Goska has dealt with a number of significant matters. These matters have been notable by virtue of the nature of the allegations and the resulting dispositions. For example, in the past year, Ms. Goska has dealt with a number of prosecutions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act where the circumstances involved either a death or very serious injuries. In all of these cases, convictions were registered, and significant fines were imposed. One such case where she was actively involved in and, I think, demonstrates exactly her expertise in respect of provincial statute prosecutions and comparing those then to criminal negligence charges under the Criminal Code, she provided very valuable input in the process of that case, with the result that the prosecutor was successful in obtaining convictions with fines imposed amounting to $15,840, which, I might indicate, was one of the highest, if not the highest, monetary conviction for this type of a situation.

In the past year, Ms. Goska has participated on the summary conviction review act committee, and I will provide the member with some details about exactly what the summary conviction review act committee involves later. Most recently she conducted a presentation at the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. I might indicate here that 45 employees of the branch were in attendance and her presentation involved a discussion of the prosecution process, the evidence necessary to sustain convictions under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, defences available to accused persons, importance of statements and how they are used in court, how the plea bargaining process works and how judges decided on fines.

It is very, very interesting that the director of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, Mr. Garry Hildebrand, who I am also familiar with, having worked with him over the years as a public servant as Minister of Labour, took the time to specifically note about the expertise of this particular individual. In an e-mail to that individual dated January 15, 1999, at 7:52 a.m. which speaks well of Mr. Hildebrand's work habits because that is the kind of person he is, there early in the morning getting the job done. He states: I just wanted to thank you for speaking to my staff yesterday. Your presentation was thorough and to the point. You did a great job. I appreciated you taking the time. Thanks. Garry Hildebrand, Director, Workplace Safety and Health Branch.

So this comes from a person very knowledgeable in the field, recognizing that this particular prosecutor had something very substantive to add to the particular issue. The member says, well, why a particular sentence. Again, he indicated the other day there are no policies on these things. How do Crowns do these things? Implying that they are sort of flying by the seat of their pants. I think to dispel that image, it is very important to go into various policies that relate to sentencing.

The first policy deals with sentencing generally, and that is dated October 10, 1990. Again this is a public document. If the member wants this as well, I will certainly obtain that and table that for him as well and send him copies of that. Policy statement general: when making submissions to sentence, it is important that Crown counsel present a clear, concise statement of facts to the court. It is also advisable to read in portions of victims' or witness' statements if aggravating features are relied on. If the charge is disposed of by way of guilty plea in Queen's Bench, it may be appropriate to file portions of evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. If this procedure is followed, a concise summary of that evidence should be orally placed on the record. In the case of sentencing after a finding of guilt after trial, problems may be encountered on a sentence appeal only. The findings of fact relied on by the court in convicting will rarely appear on the record of the sentencing proceedings. It is important in such a situation for the Crown attorney to briefly summarize the facts as found by the court or such as when the sentencing is postponed for material to be filed to order a transcript for the reasons for the decision and file them as an exhibit at the sentencing.

* (1600)

I think it is also important to put on record the subject policy related to appeal of sentencing in governing principle. This indicates that an appeal against sentence must proceed on the basis that it is either so inordinately low on its face or that the sentencing judge committed a demonstrable error in principle in imposing sentence. This will depend of course on all of the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case including the offender's background. The appellant has a strong burden of demonstrating that such an error occurred before an appellate court will grant leave to appeal. It is important to detail all factors of the case, applicable authorities and the court's remarks on the forms submitted in order for the reviewing Crown attorney to initially assess the potential success of the appeal. Some factors that enter into a decision to appeal are No. 1, the seriousness of the offence; No. 2, the previous record or character of the offender; No. 3, the sentence given to a co-accused; No. 4, the sentence is illegal; No. 5, the sentence is inordinately low on its face outside any previously appropriate range; No. 6, the position taken by Crown at the sentencing hearing; No. 7, the facts admitted by defence counsel or proved by the Crown at the sentencing hearing; No. 8, the principle of totality; No. 9, whether a plea to a lesser offence was accepted and the reasons leading to that decision; No. 10, time spent in custody awaiting sentences and the reason for this; No. 11, whether the accused was on probation, on parole pending on other matters when the offence occurred, or was reinvolved and convicted while awaiting sentence.

I find it interesting that when one examines the issues that the particular Crown considered in that particular situation is that the Crown in fact extensively considered not only what the appropriate charges were but what the sentence was in relation to other charges that had been dealt with under that act. And remember that one has to ask for sentences that the courts are willing to impose, and, true enough, the Crowns ask sometimes for sentences on the higher range of what courts are imposing, but the court, in fact, will only impose within a certain range.

I know the issue that we have been dealing with is in the area of drinking and driving which is a particular concern, I know, to many Manitobans, and sentences in respect of offences that carry a maximum of 14 years simply do not receive the kinds of sentences that the Crown certainly has been asking for. In Manitoba, for one reason or another, the sentences in drunk driving established by our Court of Appeal seem to view the six years as a top end of the range when, in fact, in some of these situations, the case is 14 years or indeed even life. I note that the federal government has implemented proposals for higher sentences in those situations and has recommended in the case of death that life sentences be imposed where drinking and driving is involved.

But in this particular situation, the Crown clearly looked at not only the issue of why pleas were accepted to three counts of 14 relative to the incident on December 19, but also outlined in at least a general fashion why a particular offence was dealt with at a certain level. What the legislation provided for at the time was a maximum of $15,000 per count. Again, I would indicate that our government raised that to $150,000. In terms of actual levies imposed by the courts, the typical fine ranged between a reprimand and $1,000. So that is essentially the range in which the Crown attorney is working in, given the ranges established by the court in interpreting the legislation.

Again, one of the other points that the member seems to glide over is that when his government, the NDP, brought in this legislation, they said, well, we want to avoid prosecution. So the whole philosophy behind the act when the member's party brought this legislation in was to avoid prosecutions, and that is an issue then, of course, that a court may take into account. They look at the legislation, they look at the philosophy behind the legislation, and they simply say, well, prosecutions, according to the NDP, are not important in this context.

Now, I think that we have tried to change that by elevating the status of these prosecutions by increasing the maximum on these counts. But in this particular case, where the typical fine ranged between a reprimand and $1,000, Poulin's was fined in respect of three counts; that is, count No. 3, $500; count No. 7, $2,500 and count No. 13, $2,500. So what I can say is that the latter two fines are more than double that which the courts traditionally treated as the high end of the range for similar offences.

* (1610)

The Crown attorney was willing to sit down and talk to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) in respect of this particular situation. Indeed, I indicated in the House to the member specifically in Hansard in answer to the question that he had brought forward first of all to the Minister of Environment and then to myself, I indicated that the Crown or other members of the department would be more than ready to sit down with the member in order to give him the true facts of this situation. So the member had made the request. I made the offer, and, indeed, I contacted my department in that respect. A meeting was set up with the member for Transcona, Mr. Reid. Mr. Reid simply did not attend and never returned the calls, never cancelled the meeting, nor did he send his regrets after missing the meeting. I think that is unfortunate. Rather than taking up the time of this committee, I think it could have been dealt with in a way that would have been satisfactory to the member in terms of giving even more detail than I have already given.

I would also like to add, in my few remaining minutes, in respect of Ms. Mary Goska, in respect of the training, I want to, in fact, indicate that this particular Crown attorney attends all the Crown attorney seminars and education, as well as noon-hour presentations on such topics as victims rights and victim impact statements, which are available to the Crown attorneys. I believe that some of these other seminars would involve, for example, a discussion on the KGB, which deals with the admissibility of statements made outside of court, and then when the witness recants the statement in court, the use of those out-of-court statements in court as to the truth of the statements made.

There are also often seminars in the department, or at least discussions in the department, in respect of developments in the Charter law. I know that Ms. Goska is readily available to meet with all client departments, and I think just the statement here from the Director of Workplace Safety and Health, Mr. Hildebrand, indicates not only her willingness to provide these departments with this background information but also indicates the degree of expertise that she has and the expertise for which she is recognized by long-standing professionals in the field. I know that often these investigators are always on the lookout for concerns or issues that they would like to have addressed. I would also indicate, as I have stated earlier, she in fact instructs at conferences now in view of her expertise in these matters.

So I am quite confident that this is the kind of person that we want in the department, that we will continue to provide our Crown attorneys with appropriate training to ensure that they develop in a fully rounded way as lawyers and also in respect of specific areas. I mentioned that she participates in The Summary Convictions Act Review Committee, and that again should be noted that at intervals, the Justice Committee consisting of five persons, lawyers and court officials, who are reviewing The Summary Convictions Act, see if there are legislative changes or enhancements needed. I understand that this is in progress now and demonstrates the level of expertise that this particular individual has. So just having dealt with the issue of Ms. Goska, once again, if there is any other material I can bring forward for the member, I will do so. I will see if my staff has that information available.

Getting back directly to the issue relating to the Poulin's Exterminators case and then applying the principles from the sentencing policy, and also the policy as I quoted quite extensively from the policy on plea arrangements or plea bargaining, why certain pleas were accepted and why it was deemed appropriate that certain pleas be entered in respect of certain case, I think, I have gone on quite extensively, but if the member wants some more information on that, I will certainly do so. I would be more than happy to provide him with any more information. I would venture to say that the department would be willing to meet with him if he is truly concerned about this issue. Given the fact that he is now delayed in even asking for this information in a period of well over a year, I am somewhat suspect of whether or not he, in fact, wants a meeting to explain some of these very complex decisions.

I know that in Question Period, the strictures of asking questions and of responding, both in terms of the form of the question and in the length of the time of the response, I think, is something that does not necessarily lend itself to the extensive explanation that members are entitled to provide in these types of context. So I would simply say that information has now been made available to him and if he requires any more information, I will be more than happy to see what can be done in order to accommodate him in a reasonable fashion.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): When we were discussing the concerns of POINTTS yesterday, the minister gave a long-winded response. I just wanted to know if the minister would put on the record whether he accepts the argument of points that they should be able to make representation on behalf of their clients in small claims court or not, and, if so, what steps he will take to enable that?

Mr. Toews: In respect of that particular issue, I thought I was clearer on where I stood on that matter. I know that POINTTS has served the people of Manitoba in respect of the representation in highway traffic cases I think in a very appropriate fashion. I do not recall receiving any complaints about what they have been doing in that context. Their ability to practise in provincial court, representing various people who are charged under The Highway Traffic Act has, in fact, come about as a result of a series of discussion and legislative amendments that allowed POINTTS to do that.

As I recall, in the context of appearing in provincial court, there was an issue that was raised of competence and governance. The competence issue I think relates primarily to the question of what type of training do these individuals have. It was clear that they were hiring people who had quite a bit of information and experience in respect of The Highway Traffic Act charges.

In the final analysis, it was agreed–and this was I think after some consultation with the Law Society who, of course, are the people who directly are interested in this matter in a legal sense–that if, in fact, they were restricted to their involvement in matters that did not involve people going to jail, then the issue of governance could be dealt with by provincial judges reporting these people, if, in fact, there were some concerns about the handling of any particular case.

As I recall, then, the matter was resolved I think to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved. The appearance of lawyers in provincial court for the prosecution of highway traffic matters generally did not involve lawyers other than in cases where there, in fact, was a potential of going to jail or serious repercussions in respect of licence or fines, and sometimes it simply was not cost-effective to hire a lawyer.

* (1620)

So it was seen that POINTTS filled a very evident need in respect of this particular issue. I think I was very pleased to see the Legislature pass legislation that created this exception to what essentially amounts to a monopoly in the governing of the conduct of people who provide legal representation in the courts.

The issue in respect of Small Claims Court, I am not aware of whether the issues are similar to the situation that can be dealt with in the provincial court, but if, in fact, the situation is similar so as to properly allow these individuals to appear in Small Claims Court, I think that the Law Society should explain its reasoning as to whether or not it opposes or is in favour of some kind of a change.

Now, I understand, and I do not have the letter in front of me so I do not want to go too deep into the subject because if I had the letter I could certainly speak at greater length on this issue, but if the Law Society is saying that they have no objection and that it is just a matter of legislation, then I do not know what this government's response would be. Clearly, the protector of the public interest in terms of the practice of law, as it is in the practice of medicine resting with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in this case it rests with the Law Society. I do not know why this issue could not be dealt with in a manner similar to that which was dealt with under the topic related to Highway Traffic Act convictions.

So I would want to see what the Law Society has to say about this particular issue, and then I would be in a position to respond as to what my position as minister would be or indeed what the position of government generally would be.

Mr. Mackintosh: POINTTS also makes the argument that they are unable to deal with matters relating to a charge of fail to exchange particulars under The Highway Traffic Act. They have done research which indicates that since 1993, and looking at 150 cases a year, not one person charged had been given a jail term as a disposition. In other words, it appears that there is no likelihood or perhaps even possibility of a jail term.

I am just wondering if the minister has a view as to whether the legislation should be changed to allow for POINTTS to represent clients charged with fail to exchange particulars, noting that they now have jurisdiction to represent clients charged with fail to report an accident.

Mr. Toews: I guess the answer that I gave in response to the last question there would be similar. I would simply want to familiarize myself more with what the jurisdiction presently is under The Highway Traffic Act. I understood generally that even in cases where there was the potential or where it was possible but not likely they might be able to represent them, so I could be mistaken on that point. But I would like to examine very clearly what the jurisdiction is presently of POINTTS, and then ask essentially the question why the act could not be amended to accommodate this. Again, the input of the Law Society I think in that respect would be important. It is not simply that the Law Society's advice would be necessarily accepted because I understand that there was some opposition to the amendments to The Highway Traffic Act which allowed POINTTS in there at first, but I think if in fact this serves a public need that is not being met presently, then I think that this is certainly something that can be examined in the course of a new legislative agenda.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $470,600–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $81,000 –pass.

Item 4.1.(c) Prosecutions and Criminal Justice Policy.

Mr. Mackintosh: It was raised in the Legislature, issues surrounding the Levreault case, which involved the McEvoy family who lost their daughter to this tragedy. One of the issues I raised was the matter of the plea bargain. I understand it took place. I no longer simply defer to Prosecutions branch policy, and I no longer simply accept plea bargains as necessary in every case. I am concerned that there is a trend of becoming too generous and perhaps worse. I think back to such plea bargains as in the Bauder case, bargains that were reviewed by people, Professor McGillivray, for example. I think of the mother, where facts were bargained away and where there was insufficient examination of the evidence and where the court was essentially misled, because the plea bargaining resulted in a skewed portrayal of the threat of the accused to the court.

* (1630)

I think of the Fabian Torres case. I was critical of the policy there, not just the plea bargain but the delay in the appeal of the conditional sentence, and persons other than myself. In this case the Court of Appeal vindicated my observations and my criticisms of how that matter was dealt with. These crimes were very, very serious. For a government that talks tough, it must account for these occurrences in light of prosecution policy. I understand that the prosecutors have been overworked, underresourced. They are dedicated and extremely hard-working, and perhaps too much so.

When I heard about the bargain in the McEvoy case, I considered that, first of all, it was not a manslaughter charge laid. We start with the charge of criminal negligence causing death, and I understand there was a bargain and it was plea bargained down to the dangerous driving section, and eventually to dangerous driving causing death. What I was concerned about was, given the factual situation, there could not have been a lower charge. I think that there should be some accountability as to why this plea bargain was entered into given the nature of this crime, given the statements and admissions by the accused, given the statements by the witnesses. Whether the plea bargain was right or wrong, I am not in a position to make that determination, but I am in a position to ask for accountability and an explanation as to what material element of the offence could not be proven so that it had to be bargained down.

Mr. Toews: There are a number of questions that have been raised in respect of the Levreault matter; it would be inappropriate for me to get into the details, given that that is under appeal. But, again, the member has made a number of misleading statements, I think very deliberately so, that–

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, I call for your intervention. I ask the minister to withdraw that remark. It is clearly unparliamentary. He should know better. It is not becoming of a Minister of Justice to talk like that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I do not think that the honourable member for St. Johns had a point of order. I think it is a matter of debating the issues in policy. I would, therefore, suggest that the honourable minister continue his answer.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, the minister said I made misleading comments which I did deliberately so. I ask that you call him to order and ask him to withdraw.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): It appears to me that it is a point of arguing the factual information, and therefore is not a point of order. I would suggest that the honourable minister continue with his comments.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, this Chair can either resign his position, consult with the authorities, before making such a silly remark as to suggest that this is not a point of order. The minister just said that I had deliberately misled the committee, something that has been ruled unparliamentary for so long a period of time I am surprised the Chair would come up with such a ruling.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): On the same point of order, the honourable minister.

Mr. Toews: Well, the member knows well what his remedies are if he disagrees with an order of the Chair, make whatever you have to do, but do not start arguing and challenging the ruling of the Chair in an inappropriate fashion. I mean, if it really perturbs the member, I can get on with it. I think that if, in any way, we can agree that, let us even assume that that comment is, in any way, improper. Well, let me say that my comment is that he is misleading this committee to the extent that it is almost deliberate and as close to deliberate as one can get without offending the rule that he is concerned about, and maybe we can proceed at this time.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Thank you very much for both of the comments that I have heard on this.

If the honourable member for St. Johns would have suggested to the Chair that this might be an unparliamentary comment, I might have suggested to the honourable member that I would consider that and ask the minister to withdraw the comment. However, he did not do that, and therefore I stand by my ruling saying that it is not a point of order, that it might have been an unparliamentary comment that was made, but my ruling stands.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The honourable minister, to continue his comments.

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much. In the House, the member made certain similar allegations and said that our department had somehow improperly plea-bargained this to an extent that simply was not warranted to the lowest possible offence. He knows full well that the lowest possible offence was dangerous driving in and of itself. The suggestion that he makes that someone could only be convicted of dangerous driving cause death where dangerous driving occurs and there is a death is simply nonsense in law. Just because someone dies in the course of an accident does not necessarily mean that that death was caused by dangerous driving. I am not saying that this is, in fact, the case here–and I do not want to get into the case, because the member full well knows that this is before the courts, and it would be inappropriate to talk about that.

Let us talk about the issue of manslaughter, and again the member knows what our Court of Appeal has said in respect of criminal negligence in the operation of motor vehicles and why manslaughter charges are not available in that situation. In fact, I can tell the member that that case law is about as old as a case out of our Court of Appeal, came somewhere between 1977 and 1979, and it was a case out of Brandon that went to the Manitoba Court of Appeal where the Manitoba Court of Appeal said we do not have an offence of motor manslaughter in our jurisdiction. So, again, the member is misleading this committee, and why would he not, in fact, say that when he, in fact, knows that that is what the state of law is? I would not speak like this–

An Honourable Member: . . . imputing something here, Vic.

Mr. Toews: Well, I would not speak like this if I knew he was not a very learned lawyer who knows what the law is in this area, or at least purports to know what the law is in this area. So the suggestion that he is making is just totally inappropriate.

This is the way the facts are twisted on a daily basis in order for him to score political points. He is not concerned about the issue of public safety. He is not concerned–

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister is losing it again. The loose cannon is at it again. He is imputing motives, and the minister should accept my questioning for the purposes of accountability by this government, that is, the purposes for which the questions are asked and for no other purpose. He has to accept that, and he cannot be making comments like this; they are unparliamentary. I ask you, Mr. Chair, to draw him to order.

Mr. Chairperson: I do not believe the honourable member for St. Johns does have a point of order. I would rule in that manner, that the honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order; it is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Toews: The other issue that the member, of course, raised is the issue about Crown staffing and reorganization. One of the–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the co-operation of the committee. The honourable minister has been recognized, and I would ask the co-operation of all committee members. Thank you.

* (1640)

Mr. Toews: Thank you. Before I was being interrupted by the member for St. Johns, I was going to indicate that I was going to address the other issue because I think that his questions in respect of the particular case are inappropriate and, secondly, do not in fact reflect the true facts.

The issue that he talked about, Crown staffing, I think should be dealt with as well. I do not want to leave that on the record unanswered.

In 1996-97, the department undertook a reorganization of the Public Prosecutions branch, and I know that that reorganization involved emphasis on dealing with matters at the intake stage, streamlining prosecutions and also concentrating efforts on more serious crimes proceeding to trial. The overall objectives were, I am advised, to achieve more efficient use of prosecutors and fundamentally different tasks for administrative staff. Also there was an emphasis on greater continuity so that as much as possible a single prosecutor was assigned a file from screening to completion. Although that cannot be done in every case, that was certainly the emphasis for greater continuity.

There was also a greater emphasis placed on improved case screening at the front end of the process. This reorganization was conducted internally by the department. On September 9, 1997, there was an approval of a plan proposed by the departments of Justice, Family Services and the Status of Women in response to the Lavoie inquiry. The increase in staff to the Prosecutions branch was seven prosecutors and two support staff. These positions are presently filled. On August 10, 1998, there was additional approval, six additional Crown attorney positions along with seven support personnel. Five of the new Crown positions were to be utilized to hire new Crown attorneys in Youth and in Intake, and five support staff were to be used for administrative support in the Intake and the Youth units. There were a number of staff then that was brought into this particular branch in order to ensure that matters were being proceeded with in a timely fashion.

The reorganization of Prosecutions generally is nearing completion. The Family Violence and Youth units are fully staffed. The Intake unit began a larger operation I believe that is in effect as of March 29, 1999, and by May this unit will include prosecutors from the Family Violence unit, the Youth unit and Adult Prosecutions Intake unit.

The review of out-of-custody precharged screening will have grown to incorporate youth charges and post charges as well as pre-appearance family violence offences. All Crown attorneys in Winnipeg have been assigned to units, with the physical moves having been facilitated. Support staff have recently been assigned to the units, and the retaining of support staff is to begin shortly. The trial units have been reassigned circuit responsibilities.

So I think that the suggestion that this government has not been proceeding in a timely fashion to address these particular concerns needs to be fully addressed.

I think it would be helpful for me to deal with some of the issues that have arisen that reflect directly on the Crown's ability to provide services and the response of the government to these very, very timely recommendations that have been made and how we have responded to them.

The Minister of Justice, the present member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), responded to a community request for an inquiry into the deaths of Rhonda and Roy Lavoie. She constructed terms of reference for that inquiry that were sufficiently broad and comprehensive to address a range of issues which then had impact on the funding and the deployment of staff. The report itself from Mr. Justice Schulman led to the appointment of an implementation committee and also, very importantly, to the approval of new funds to carry out the task. Together with the various government departments, the implementation committee have championed the cause articulated by Mr. Justice Schulman and ensured that essential resources, including resources relating to Crown attorneys, were addressed.

I want to indicate that this is an example of the consultative nature of this government in terms of looking at issues like resources. In addition to the elected and judicial officials that participated in this particular exercise, there were 135 Manitobans who were called upon to share their wisdom, experience, and vision in 14 different working groups. Following the recommendations in the Lavoie inquiry report, they set the course for program and policy initiatives in Justice, including some of the initiatives that I referred to that had a direct bearing on the issue of resources in the criminal prosecutions branch.

* (1650)

I think I want to parenthetically note here that while the implementation committee had the privilege of meeting and working with these 135 Manitobans, we know that they are representatives for the many other dedicated individuals in workplaces and communities throughout Manitoba. Certainly our government was heartened to know that their good will and commitment has in fact had a remarkable multiplier effect throughout our province as they take the results of their work back to the colleagues and to their community.

The policy that was of particular concern and then resulted in these additional resources was the issue of domestic violence. I think that in looking at how we approach this particular issue and the resources then that were presented in order to facilitate this particular concern and how that then impacted positively upon the resources in the Department of Justice I think should be noted.

The recommendations, generally speaking, talked about things such as the Family Violence Court unit. The recommendations there were that there should be a court to hear the applications for judicial interim release of offenders charged with domestic violence offences. We have had this discussion in Estimates already, that the judiciary felt that this recommendation was not appropriate and, given that they have the control over the setting of the courts, that they were the ones who determined that all bails should be held in one court. What we then ensured is that there are sufficient resources to deal with bail applications in cases of domestic violence in Winnipeg.

As I understand the process now, instead of simply having one Crown attorney doing this work in the bail court, there in fact are two Crown attorneys, one of them being the family violence Crown attorney. The issue of their training was seen as an important way to reduce their workload and to in fact ensure that they are more effective in carrying out their particular responsibilities.

On December 3 and 4, a seminar was presented at the Crown attorneys conference. The conference which was scheduled for two days was geared solely to domestic violence issues, the cycle of violence, risk assessment and dangerous offenders. I think it is important to note that it is not just more bodies but more training that will assist in reducing some of this workload.

The April seminar which was scheduled did not relate to domestic violence, but the September 1999 session will in fact relate to information on successfully prosecuting domestic violence cases. What this then has the impact of doing is to lessen the need for perhaps additional Crown attorneys by ensuring that Crown attorneys have the most current information and in fact can proceed in a very expeditious way. I note that in reviewing the dockets on domestic violence bail, those courts do seem to move in a timely fashion in terms of how much time is required in court. Having said that, I recognize of course fully that many of the Crown attorneys, indeed all of the Crown attorneys, work very hard in order to ensure that they are prepared before they go into court.

Again, the other recommendation was that a system should be developed to ensure that Crown attorneys receive copies of restraining orders, nonmolestation orders, peace bonds and affidavits related to domestic proceedings between offender and victim and notification on Child and Family Services. That was Recommendation 27. In fact, now the Crown attorneys continue to have computerized access to restraining orders, nonmolestation orders and peace bonds, as well as, the ability to access the Queen's Bench pockets as required.

I want to also point out that one can look at more Crown attorneys, but we have to also look at whether Crown attorneys are best suited to do a particular job. Therefore, I think that it is important to ensure the appropriate administrative support staff is also available to them in order to ensure whether it is through the Women's Advocacy group or others. So it is very important I think to speak about the additional resources provided in respect of support for the Crown attorneys in doing their job and also then very directly impacting on court services, for example, for victims. I think just in that context, one does not look simply at the Crown attorneys' position. I was just reading a very interesting article that if Ontario had the same number of Crowns as Manitoba does on a case basis, they would have to hire, I think, somewhere literally in the hundreds of positions. So I am not suggesting our Crown attorneys have an easy load. I think that in comparison I know, and I would have to get those statistics to say exactly what they are, but in respect of other jurisdictions, we compare very favourably.

I noted that there is of course in NDP jurisdictions a real concern about the courts there. Indeed there does not appear to be the same level of resourcing in those NDP jurisdictions that we have here. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The minister has been recognized for his remarks, and I would ask the minister to continue, please.

Mr. Toews: I note that in British Columbia, for example, and we have to measure our resources against other jurisdictions. We can always do better, but I think it is always important to bear the context of the Canadian justice system in mind when we are doing this. In that context, I think it might be helpful to the member if he looked up this particular article himself from The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, April 22, 1998, where The Globe and Mail indicates that courts are in crisis, B.C.'s Chief Judge says. And a Mr. Craig McGuinness [phonetic] of the British Columbia Bureau Reporting states, and I quote: British Columbia's provincial court system is in crisis and thousands of criminal cases are at risk of being thrown out over delays, according to a report released yesterday by the court's top judge. Every year, 250,000 new cases come to court and the court cannot keep pace, Chief Judge Robert Metzger says in the report of a provincially appointed committee he heads. Criminal cases are being delayed to the point where we risk dismissal or reduction of thousands of charges, because the court system is unable to meet the accused's right to a trial within a reasonable time. Judge Metzger says B.C. needs a minimum of five new provincial court judges and overhaul of procedures to deal with the backlog. All branches of the court are affected, the report says. Criminal cases are being stayed because of delays in provincial court. Children are suffering because of delays in family court, and debtors are escaping their obligations in civil court.

* (1700)

Now, I find it remarkable that the member comes here and says that he has the answer, and his friends in British Columbia are obviously suffering. If he has shared his answer with his colleagues in British Columbia, why is this occurring? If they have not shared the answer and he just wants to keep it a secret here in Manitoba about he would improve the system, why? You would think that he would share this kind of information with his colleagues in B.C. and the NDP government there.

I know that the member can only criticize, but I would think that he has some positive comments that he would want to make to help the system generally. So we, in fact, have been making positive changes to support our Crown attorneys. The suggestion that there is a staff shortage, I think, is an unfair comment to make in the entire context of what is going on in Manitoba. Just simply compare that to British Columbia where the courts, the chief judge says, are in crisis, thousands of cases are being jeopardized. Some of the changes that will directly go to assisting our Crown attorneys deal with staffing in Women's Advocacy, Child Witness and Victim Witness Assistance.

Since June 15 of 1998 and basically up to date, I would think, the staff changes are seven new positions in Winnipeg: 2.6 new positions in rural offices; two secondments were accommodated; three resignations occurred with new recruitments hired, one reassigned within the unit and three casual term positions were hired with two currently working in the unit. Currently, there are 17 full-time permanent staff, three part-time staff, two term staff and one casual staff working for court services for victims. We have also increased accessibility of court services to victims due to an increase in staff which resulted in earlier response to clients and the ability then to proactively inform victims and witnesses of services available to help them through the court process and to assist women with safety planning.

Traditionally, much of this has been done by Crown attorneys, but in order to ensure that they can focus on other things, these staff who are perhaps more appropriately fitted into this type of work are now being able to do this. I might also point out that a bilingual counsellor was hired to provide French language services, and provincially the program now has six staff of aboriginal descent, one Spanish speaking and one French speaking counsellor. Furthermore, translation services are provided for women who use English as a second language, and transportation costs are being subsidized for bus fares or taxis, if necessary. Babysitting is now being subsidized for people with an identified need.

Staff training, again, is very important to allow staff to have an understanding of the types of issues that they would be needing. So new staff have received orientations which include review of the organizational charts, direct observation of counsellor interviews, and the introduction to case tracking and the program registries. Also, the new staff are provided with an explanation of what services the Department of Justice provides victims and witnesses in our two programs, and a number of pamphlets from the Public Safety Branch is provided to them.

The quarterly report for court services for victims indicates a number of objectives. For example, in the Women's Advocacy Program, it is indicated that within two days of notification there be an attempt to contact the victim of domestic violence to offer service. In fact this was done by a first responder position, was established in Winnipeg in December of 1998, and within 48 hours of notification generally that a domestic violence incident has occurred–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The minister's time has expired.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister is just abusing this process, but if he wants to put the puffery on the record, that is fine. I ask the–

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order that the member tried to raise earlier, that he is imputing motives, he should not be imputing motives.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns, to continue.

Mr. Mackintosh: The question was on the McEvoy tragedy in the rural case, and I understand there is a sentence appeal ongoing. It is not an appeal on the plea bargain itself. I ask the minister for accountability on this one. What material element of the offence would the prosecution never have been able to prove that required a plea bargain? A very specific question.

Mr. Toews: Just in respect of the issue, I have indicated that that is under appeal and that it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this time on that case. I think the statements that I have made, in fact, make my case, that I should not be making any further comments.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is not good enough that the minister makes a charge that I am misleading in any way, and then not be accountable for a plea bargain that was entered into. As I reiterate, the charge of dangerous driving causing death, in my view, and if he has other information in this factual situation and in light of the evidence that is known, is the lowest they could go, then why, in the interests of the reputation of the administration of justice and to send a strong message for justice, would that bargain have been arrived at?

Again, I do not know if it is right or wrong. I am just waiting for an explanation. I know the Prosecutions branch and the prosecutions policy have not been the subject of public scrutiny in the past in this province, but we have had to start that scrutiny. Indeed, I think one of the benefits of that is at least we got the attention of the minister, after getting the attention of the public to the fact that the Prosecutions branch needed additional supports from this government. I do not think the additional supports that were necessary were only staff related, although I know the Association of Crown Attorneys carried that forward. I think that there are improvements yet needed, but in terms of protocol and directives, I ask, given that the appeal is a sentence appeal, what material element could not be proven?

Mr. Toews: I will take the question as notice. If it is appropriate for me to say so, I will make further comments. I think it is very dangerous to comment on especially the facts that are now the subject of an appeal. I do not want to say anything on the record that would prejudice an appeal by referring specifically to facts.

I know the member does not care about prejudicing trials. He was the one who stood up in public, in front of the media, because he wanted a cheap pop for publicity. He quoted the record of a person who had been arrested on a case and quoted before this person had gone to trial and outlined the prior record of a person, purportedly knowing that it is unlawful to do so. [interjection] Absolutely. He knows that, but he does not care about the administration of justice. I have to ensure that trials go to court in an appropriate fashion. I will, in fact, ensure that my comments in that respect do not prejudice an appeal. If there is something in addition that I can say, I will. Otherwise, the position of the department will be in court as to why the particular case is under appeal and why there should be a change in the sentence in that particular case.

* (1710)

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister does not understand the role of the opposition. Certainly I know he is trying intimidation tactics. He is more than welcome to try that, but I do not think his comments assist his reputation. I do not think that is in the interests of accountability or justice.

The minister talked about the supports to Crown attorneys. Can he tell the committee whether his Crown attorneys each have access to Quick Law or CanLaw, and how was that access ensured? Do they each have personal computers and are those databases available?

Mr. Toews: I am advised that all Crown attorneys have access to personal computers. In fact, they all have personal computers, and they all access a research program that has been developed specifically for Crown attorneys. It was developed by an Alberta Crown attorney. It is referred to as CLASS and it is right across Canada. I understand that all Crown counsel input into that system. I know that there are negotiations that are being taken for other information systems, but it appears that this access now through their personal computers is what they have at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: What access do the Constitutional Law branch lawyers have to this database in personal computers?

Mr. Toews: I understand that Constitutional Law also has access to the same system because the research director there is involved in inputting this information into that particular system, and I know that they also have access to Supreme Court decisions, which is essentially what they rely on, on a day-to-day basis, for developing policies and advancing their cases. If there is any additional access that they have, I can have my staff find out about that and get back to the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: How many new prosecutor positions are now funded this fiscal year over last year at this time?

Mr. Toews: I understand I can give you this information now, that we have five Crowns as of last summer, permanent, five support staff, and three new terms for a total of eight Crown attorneys and five support staff. I understand that as of November of '99 there will be an additional four permanent staff, Crown attorneys, for a targeted unit.

* (1720)

Mr. Chairperson: Is there a willingness of the committee to take a five-minute break, and we will reconvene the committee back here at 5:25 p.m.? [agreed]

________

Mr. Chairperson: Committee of Supply, back to order. When we called for the recess, I was about to recognize the honourable member for St. Johns. The honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Reid: The Minister of Justice has made certain statements or allegations here at the start of our hearing process this afternoon. I have gone back and I have checked my records and, perhaps just to refresh the minister's memory and the memory of his staff, because I do keep a diary of calls that come into my office and I do respond to every single call that comes in if I am at the office, I did receive a call from Mr. Finlayson on June 23, right at the end of our legislative session last year.

At that time we were in debate on legislation. I was involved with committees of this Legislature and the public hearing process and did not have a chance to respond to that particular call at that particular day. I did respond to that call later and to another call that I received from the minister's office, Prosecutions office, on July 8. I left a message for the director of Prosecutions at that time, indicating that, yes, I was interested in speaking with him or members of his staff, indicating a willingness to sit down to talk about the issues because the minister said that he would make his staff available as a result of questions that I had raised in Question Period when we were talking about the Poulin's case.

Unfortunately I had to go out of town after that point, and I was away for about a week. I note that on the record that was left for me by my assistant on July 9, the next day, Mr. Finlayson called back and left a message booking an appointment for me for July 15 for a period of time that I was out of town and would be unavailable, and he booked that appointment without consulting with me.

So I leave on the record here that I had called back, I had responded to the calls, and I was unavailable and out of town after that point in time. The appointment that the minister references saying that I had never attended was never confirmed by myself nor by my assistant because I was out of town at the time. So you cannot say that I did not respond to the calls that were not there, and you did not say that I missed the meeting or skipped the meeting or refused to respond because I just was not available when the call came back from your office. I was out of town.

So I do not know why the minister would make that comment with respect to that, but that is what my records show here that have been documented from last year. I put that on the record to correct the statements that the minister has said, saying that I skipped a meeting and did not respond to the calls that came to my office.

Mr. Toews: Of course, since he has referred to that, he has quoted from it, he will table that, and I certainly want a photocopy of that and certainly I would like to see that because he has referred to it.

* (1730)

I can only indicate that is the information of my staff, that a meeting was set up for July 15 at 9 p.m., and the member, whether he was available or not, and let us assume for the moment that he was not available, let us say that he was out of town on July 15 or wherever. The point is that he, according to the notes that my staff have, is that no one called back to say that he was not available. No one called back. The point is, if he really thought this was an important issue, if he was really concerned about his constituents, would he simply say, oh, no one called back, guess it does not mean I want to set up a meeting?

What this clearly demonstrates is that he was not interested in it. He was not interested in it beyond one day, and that my staff attempted to set up a meeting, he did not follow it up. Let us assume, let us assume for the moment that what he is saying is absolutely correct, which appears to be at odds with what the department is saying, but if he really cared about this case, would he not, a week later, two weeks later, maybe a month later, maybe two months later, pick up the phone, call my office, and say, what happened to that meeting? Nothing.

I think that speaks volumes about the member's interest in the particular case involving Poulin's. I stand by my comments in respect of the member's interest in this particular case.

Mr. Mackintosh: Those are unfortunate remarks that given that the member has raised this in the Legislature in Estimates yesterday and today, I think, makes speeches on it, speaks about his concern.

Following the questions about the Prosecution positions, how many positions that have been funded are now filled this year over last year at this time?

Mr. Toews: My staff will prepare that in writing, so that there is no misunderstanding about the positions that are there over this last year or so in terms of any increases.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister said that there were new positions for a targeted unit. What was the targeted unit he was referring to?

Mr. Toews: Targeted offenders unit.

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not know if this is Mr. Finlayson's position, his ADM's position, but on the managerial line under Salaries and Employee Benefits here and on some other appropriations, there is a relatively significant increase. Here I notice year over year there is an increase from $80,100 to $87,400, and I notice on others, not just Mr. Finlayson's, but I notice on other senior management positions there were also significant increases.

I am wondering what formula has been used to increase the senior management salaries.

Mr. Toews: I am advised that management, generally speaking, received the same increase that employees received; that is, 2 percent. Also what might be reflected in there is the cessation of the 2 percent reduction of the workweek program and also a one-day salary accrual.

There are sometimes minor changes right across these lines that reflect themselves on all of the lines, but I do not have any information on that. I also asked staff to check into whether or not there could have been a reclassification. Some of these positions are reclassified from time to time. I am not aware of that particular situation, whether there was a reclass. I do not believe that was the assistant deputy minister responsible for Prosecutions, that salary. I believe that could be the policy director.

Mr. Mackintosh: I notice the director of Public Safety's, I presume, salary has gone from $83,600 to $91,600, a fairly significant increase relative to other increases. I am wondering what the explanations are for that as well.

Mr. Toews: I am advised that the position that you are referring to is in O4-2E relating to Public Safety, and the explanation of that is when the director of Public Safety was first created, the department–and I am dealing with 2.(e) now–had to reallocate another position from within its approved complement to accommodate the new function.

The position used was one from the Legislative Counsel's office that had become vacant because of a retirement, and the position in question was classified as a Senior Legal Officer 3. Mr. Sangster was hired against that position but was classified as a Professional Officer 10, a process known as underfilling in civil service parlance. This classification was assigned on an interim basis because it was recognized that the duties of the position would evolve and change over the first few years of operation.

Since the position was transferred to the Public Safety appropriation, it has been kept at the LE3 level pending the ultimate review and permanent classification of the director position. Once a final determination on classification is made, probably this fiscal year, the change will be reflected in subsequent Estimates. Mr. Sangster continues to be compensated as a Professional Officer 10, a classification having a maximum annual salary of $69,562.

I would also note in a supplementary fashion that the maximum salary of an LE3 is $86,300, and the budget summary shows $91,600. The difference occurs because a number of miscellaneous costs such as provision for maternity leave–I assume that is not for Mr. Sangster–salary accruals and casual staffing have been prorated against all the salaries shown rather than being reported on a separate line or lines. This is done to simplify the Estimates supplement format and provides a mathematically accurate grand total but then may in fact not reflect the perception of the salaries paid to a specific individual.

* (1740)

If the proration had not been done, the managerial salary would have been shown as $86,300 and the other salaries would also have been lower, but the following lines would have been added. So salary accrual one day 11.8–and this would all be thousands; maternity leave $9,500; STEP students $14,000; casual staffing $58,000. Casual staffing provides flexibility to bring in part-time staff to accommodate variable victim services workloads, sick leave and vacation replacement and the like.

Mr. Mackintosh: Now the real doozie, on the face of it, is in Civil Justice managerial there. I do not know whose position that is, if that is Mr. Perozzo or who, but what is the explanation for the move from $46,000 to $93,200 on that line?

Mr. Toews: Let me try to explain it. As a result of a transfer of Mr. Perozzo whose staff year would have fitted somewhere in there, Mr. Perozzo took his staff year, and they brought in another staff year for the management of that particular situation. That staff year had a $46,000 level, and in order then to staff that position at a managerial level, that increases it from $46,000 to $93,000, so Mr. Perozzo took his staff year as the associate deputy minister to the associate deputy minister position that he holds now and that then required another staff year but the increase in funding in order to staff a management position was necessary.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have heard that there has been some ongoing dispute within the Prosecutions branch about what office, whether it be Winnipeg or Portage la Prairie, should service the Interlake. I understand that there have been some difficulties as a result of that at the prosecution level. Would the minister tell us whether there have been cases that have been dropped by the Crowns due to this dispute?

Mr. Toews: As I understand from the assistant deputy minister, he advises that the Crowns out of Portage la Prairie used to do a circuit into Garden Hill and St. Theresa Point which would be east of Lake Winnipeg in the Island Lake area. The Portage Crowns used to do that, and it was their position, in discussions with the management, that could perhaps be more easily done by Crown counsel out of Winnipeg. So, as a result of a shifting around of responsibilities, in fact, Garden Hill and St. Theresa Point is now handled out of Winnipeg and Portage la Prairie, Crowns have been given other circuit duties. I am not aware, and neither is the assistant deputy minister, of any cases that would have somehow suffered as a result of that change in the delivery of a service by the particular office.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the Portage la Prairie office now servicing the Interlake dockets?

Mr. Toews: I can get the member the information as to what circuits and what courts they service. I am advised that there are additional circuits that they took over. I do not know what circuits those are, and the assistant deputy minister does not have that information at his fingertips at the moment.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 4.1. Administration and Finance (c) Prosecutions and Criminal Justice Policy (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $306,600–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $136,300–pass.

4.1. (d) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is interesting to hear the minister muse in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago that he was thinking about suspending or revoking drivers' licences when fines are unpaid. Now we had this discussion around this table going back a few years I think with the earlier minister, that in fact a computer program–I cannot remember the name of it now–but an information system had been put together. I know it had some problems, but the minister confirmed that in fact this used to happen and that something went awry. If he is considering it again now, it is because something went wrong with the system before. I understood that there was a lack of communication of unpaid fines to the licence suspension people.

* (1750)

Mr. Toews: The information that I can provide at this time is related to that particular question. As the member knows, back in 1996 there were extensive changes made to the Criminal Code of Canada. Those changes not only brought in very controversial sentencing provisions dealing with conditional sentences–which this government has made some very strong statements in respect of–but indeed it made changes in the way fines were enforced and restitution orders were enforced. There has been, as a result of those amendments, an inability to collect in the same way fines and restitution orders that had been made prior to 1996 or the way in which they were made in 1996. In particular, let me deal with restitution orders.

As a result of the federal government changing the provisions of the Criminal Code, the orders of the court in respect of restitution is, in fact, enforced in a civil way. Offenders are no longer called back to the court nor are they sentenced to pay certain money or do certain things, in default of which they would have to serve some time in a provincial jail. In fact, they now, essentially if a victim in a restitution context has not received his or her restitution, the courts essentially provide the victim with an order and have the victim attempt to enforce that order as a judgment of the court. I think that is unfortunate. It does not allow, I think, for the much more effective collection of restitution orders in the way that it used to. Unfortunately we are limited by the amendments to the Criminal Code which essentially required victims to enforce these restitution orders as civil judgments. It raises all kinds of difficulties when in fact these judgments are made against criminals who have committed some kind of crime against a particular victim. I made my position known to the federal Justice minister recently in respect of this issue and asked her to reconsider this particular policy shift because I think she did not want any victims revictimized in this particular fashion.

So, in the meantime, we felt it was important that the government make changes to the law in order to help individuals enforce their judgments. The way that we would do it would be to withhold the issuance of licences, and so the registrar would have the power to withhold a licence when it came up to renewal. So we are hoping, because we are bringing in the legislative authority to do exactly that, that this will to some small extent–and I want to just get back to the use of that phrase shortly–enable victims to recover fines, or, excuse me, restitution, similarly allow provincial fines also recovered in the same way and other fines.

I might say that when I said small extent, this particular program has been particularly successful in the context of maintenance enforcement. I know that the Maintenance Enforcement Branch has been tremendously successful in the utilization of the registrar's powers to withhold licences in order to ensure that maintenance is paid. That certainly is something that we hope to see implemented in the near future, and I am speaking in respect of the withholding of drivers' licences for the nonpayment of restitution and certain fines. So that has never been in legislation before, and that is being brought, as I indicated earlier, into the House in order to ensure that the legislative authority exists for the registrar of motor vehicles to do that.

Just in respect of the summary conviction fines, which will be also the subject of this legislation to withhold the licences of people who fail to pay these fines, I note that the limited success of this process has prompted us to find new ways of doing business in this respect. I know that with respect to summary conviction fines, the department has been working with two collection agencies over the past three years. The collection agencies' contracts expire March 31, 1999. So, in fact, they have expired, and a proposal has been prepared now and sent to 21 vendors as potential new agencies. I do not know what the status of that particular contract is, but I can inquire in that respect. I know that agencies have collected $401,000, approximately, over a three-year period. These fines are all over five years of age, and the success rate of 25 percent in respect of these fines is within an acceptable range. It is proposed that a number of other fines will be transferred or accounts will be transferred to the new collection agencies. And, again, I will have to confirm whether that has in fact occurred, and these fines will then, in addition, range from five years old to, I understand, 90 days old. In respect of Criminal Code fines, the new tenders, I understand, are to include Criminal Code fines as well to be sent to these agencies.

Again, I think that the old way of collecting fines was a much more effective way because, if someone did not pay their fine, there was always a default period. The Criminal Code could enforce those, and many people would pay the fine rather than take the risk of going to jail. I remember many times, in prosecuting, you would get a $150 fine and $10 a day in default if you defaulted on the fine. So, for a $150 fine, you would spend 15 days in jail, and, as I understood it back then, you would spend every day of that in jail. So a very effective way of dealing with it.

I had asked the federal Justice minister to consider reintroducing that, and I understand that the federal Justice minister is concerned about not overcrowding our jails with people who have not paid fines. The question that I have to say, though, is what kind of respect does that generate in the justice system in respect of orders that cannot be enforced by the court. I can continue next day.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.