Manitoba Hansard — 18 August 1986 (Sitting 69B, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-69b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 18 August, 1986. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNEY-GENE RAL MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The Estima tes of the Department of the Attorney-General, Page 16 . We 'll begin with Resolution 16 , but prior to that we will have an introductory statement by the Attorney-General. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The introductory statement is in the blue folders and, accord ingly , in order that we can get down to brass tacks as quickly as possible, I am not going to read it all.

I'm just going to highlight some of the points made in the printed statement. The primary responsibility of the department is to admin ister and, I think, to improve the justice system in Manitoba. I stress here that I strongly believe that Manitobans have much to be proud of in our justice sys tem. All too frequent ly, our justice institutions, both federally and in all of the provinces, are viewed through particul ar, often egregious incidents, rather than on the basis of overall performance. There's no doubt that there are spectacular crimes that, understanda bly, engage the emotions of all.

Too often, the justice system is viewed through those particular lens, rather than from an overall perspective. It is therefore I think worth empha sizing that our justic e system is working, and I believe working effectively. In my view, our communities are safe and secure. Our police and prosecutors are efficient and profes sional. Our courts provide for the timely resolution of private disputes between citizens, and deal with criminal and other public matters with procedural regularity and fairness.

Our laws and programs on family matters are consi dered models of this kind, and have been consid ered for adoption throughout Canada, in many instances in fact have already been adopted throughout Canada. Our systems for the registration and security of title have been steadily improving and operating effectively. In all of these areas, I will stress there is, of course, room for improvement.

As I point out, there are many aspects of the system which require attention and improvement, and I think it's only through constant review, reconsideration and reform that our justice system can best maintain its vita l ity. Reasoned di scourse in these Estim ates, as general ly have characterized these Estimates, can provide an excellent forum for such review. I'm really going to deal with three basic areas, organizing for the future and recent programs that have been implemented and new initiatives. Last year when I appeared before this comm ittee, Mr.

Chairperson, I was able to announce a series of changes in the structure of the department which had been approved but not at that time fully implemented. I can now indic ate 3068 that changes have been im plemented, some new personnel are in place and the anticipated benefits are beginning to show. The current organization of the department is set out in chart form of

Schedule 1 in the document of Supplementary Information which has been distribu ted in the House. Now the department is organ ized into six divisions, rather than the previous 11 . Each division is headed by an Assistant Deputy Min ister , or equivalent, and it's much easier to look at the appropriations in a functional sense with this kind of structure. t.ast year, I was able to announce the addition of two branches to the department, both in my view, long overdue. One was the Research, Planning and Evaluation Branch, the other was the Constitutional Law Branch.

These changes have now been fully , and I strongly believe, successfu lly impl emented. I'll just mention one or two things about these units, but we can look at the details when we get to the appropriate point in the Estimates. With respect to Research, Planning and Evaluation in fact, I'll be able to indicate a number of projects that have been developed and completed in a very short period of time by this branch. Just as an example, one of the documents prepared by this branch, "Justice in Manitoba - Key Indic ators" has been distri buted to comm ittee members.

This is but one example of the kind of information which will assist departmental managers, the Legislature and the public generally to better unde rstand the many programs of the department. We've also in cluded a list of current activities in the material distributed. Just two things that I would like to mention, they've been mentioned before. We're now conducting pilot projects relating to the treatment of victims of crime and child witnesses. I'm speaking, of course, of the Victim Impact Statement Project and the Project on the Videotaping of Child Witnesses.

The branch provides the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and to make improvements, or at least to suggest improvements, without increasing the cost to the public. I just might mention, and it will be mentioned a little bit further on again, that one of the things the branch is currently looking at is the possibility of expanding the family division of the Court of Queen's Bench province-wide. The Constitutional Law Branch is proving very, very valuable indeed, is fully engaged in a whole number of matters.

One of the most immedia tely visible products of its work was the bill introduced in this Session of the Legislature, already passed through comm ittee, the Constitutional Quest ions Act. With respect to the office of Legislative Counsel, I'm still looking at the structure of the department. I annou nced last year that the office of Legislative Counsel was being significantly expan ded. These changes have now been completed. The legislation and legal translation division are merged and led by an ADM, legislative counsel, and consists then of the

Monday, 18 August, 1986 legislative drafting unit and a unit responsible for legal translation . Having these two groups together has, in my view, very much facilitated the efficient and timely production of legislation and regulations for both the ongoing work of the Legislature and, of particular importance, for the re-enactment of those current and past laws required to meet the province's constitutional obligations . When we come to the appropriate sections in the Estimates, I'll be prepared to deal with those matters in somewhat greater detail.

There have been other changes to the department's organization and personnel, which are outlined in the Estimates informat ion. Some of these are significant. For example, there's been a complete reorganization of the structure of Court Services and the department has assumed responsibility for the Great Library from the Law Society , and an understanding with the Law Society, pursuant to which the Law Society portion of the funding has been assimilated by the department. It makes for a much more efficient operation and one with respect to which tax dollars are more immediately accountable. I now turn, Mr.

Chairperson , to the second of the three matters upon which I wanted to comment in these opening remarks, and that is the implementation of recent programs. Of special note is the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench . That's been in operation now for two years and the expected benefits of bringing all domestic and family matters under the jurisdiction of one court is being realized, especially something that was innovated to a very considerable extent by the courts, particularly the Associate Chief Justice of that section, Mr. Justice Hamilton, the use of pre-trial conferencing.

Initially when we established the Family Division, we thought , well, the mediation aspect would be its most important aspect. Indeed, it continues to be important. But mediation doesn 't always succeed . We've found that when the judge now, as a matter of course , insists on a pre-trial conference , calls in the counsel with the parties, they sit around in a somewhat informal atmosphere and the judge begins to address what appears to be the outstanding issues and gives an indication of how he thinks those ought to be resolved .

In a very, very large portion of the cases, it leads to suggestions for settlement, where mediation might not have yet produced that result. In fact, so successful has the pre-trial conferencing been in the Family Division that it has now been adopted under the leadership of Mr. Chief Justice Hewak and Associate Chief Justice Richard Scott into the court as a whole.

The challenge now before the department is to expand the jurisdiction of the court throughout the province and, as I indicated a bit earlier, we've got an evaluation ongoing and I hope to be in a position to indicate to this committee next fiscal year how and when we will be proceeding with that expansion. There are two other programs which are significant. One, of course, is The Law Enforcement Review Act, and the other is the Validation Plan stemming out of the order of the Supreme Court.

I propose to deal with those, not now by going through the printed material in the speech as distributed, but when we get to the particular

section in the Estimates . I'd like to point out, however, with respect to the Law Enforcement Review Agency , that its success , as we anticipated at the outset, would depend to the largest extent on the integrity of the complaint process . The first requirement , that is to afford every complainant an opportunity to voice his or her grievance, to receive fair and thorough consideration and eventually a comprehensive and well -reasoned response , appears to have been achieved . It may yet be too early to draw any firm conclusions , but the first full year of operation has been very positive in my view. I'll provide some data when we come to that

section of the Estimates. I turn now to the final of the three major points that I wanted to make in these introductory remarks . These concern the question of new initiatives. There are many which I might consider at this point. Some, such as the Law Foundation , I'll really be dealing with at several points throughout the Estimates , but I do want to talk about one in particular, perhaps two. One is the expansion of Maintenance Enforcement. Here again , as I've done in the past, I'd like to pay tribute to the work of the former Attorney-General, Mr.

Mercier , who is here , who was one of the pioneers of this Maintenance Enforcement Program which is a credit to all Manitobans. It's now being emulated across the country . Although the Maintenance Enforcement Program is province-wide, there has been some disparity in the delivery of services between Winnipeg and rural Manitoba. In Winnipeg, departmental personnel handle all the court work related to the Enforcement Program. But outside of Winnipeg , frequently no one appears on behalf of the applicant or only the designated enforcement officer will appear.

As well, the computer system that serves the Enforcement Program is located in Winnipeg . The proposed expansion - and it's reflected in the Estimates - will result in direct computer access to program account records in each judicial district ; an additional family maintenance officer to coordinate rural enforcement ; additional enforcement personnel outside Winnipeg; a provision of direct legal services for maintenance to the rural areas; and additional efforts to ensure that the benefits of the recently proclaimed federal legislation, the Enforcement Assistance Act , are fully realized .

The additional staff and costs amount to 6.5 staff years and $247,000 but it's expected that this outlay will be more than offset by additional payments to welfare spouses , resulting then in reduction in the costs of provincial welfare assistance . That, of course, has been the experience with the program as a whole . In terms of Legal Aid, we've already been able to announce - and so I'm simply repeating here for emphasis - that there have been some substantial improvements to the plan .

The financial eligibility guidelines were expanded to meet Stats Canada poverty guidelines and the general tariff of fees, as well as the domestic tariff, were revised upward. These changes were necessary to ensure that Manitoba continues to have one of the best Legal Aid schemes in the country. The financial eligibility changes ensure that there will be reasonable access to legal services by those who would not otherwise be represented .

I simply point out here I think something is sometimes not fully realized, that Legal Aid is one of the most important and one of the most widely used soc ial programs - and it is a social program - in the province . 3069

Monday, 18 August, 1986 For example, in the year ending March 31, 1985, some 60,000 Manitobans availed thems elves of the services of Legal Aid. In fact, that number has been about the average number. It's gone from about 50,000 to 60,000 in the 10 or more years of the plan and one can see that - well, obviously, there are a number of duplications there - a very substantial number of Manitobans have benefited from the plan.

These ch anges in Legal Aid, while major, the additional costs will be borne in part through a better Legal Aid agreement with the Federal Government and, of course, that's not just between ourselves and the Federal Go vern ment, but between the Federal Government and all provinces; and that has been final ized and the agreement is winging its way here for signatur e. But it's in fact retroactive to April 1, 1985, additionally because the funds which originate from lawyers' trust accounts will now be sent directly to Legal Aid by the Law Foundation instead of through the Consolida ted Fund.

The printed vote for Legal Aid appears to have been reduced. In fact, this is simply an adjustment required by the anticipated creation of the Foundation. I'l l be commenting on other expenditure areas affected by the Foundation grants as we come to them. In concluding, Mr. Chairman, like other branches of government the department has had to live under tight circu mstances, in fact, a comparison of expe nditures by the Department of the Attorne y-General with other areas will show that it has been very, very tightly controlled indeed.

Yet by repriorization we've been able to develop a whole number of new initiatives, whether it's in the field of Legal Aid or enforcement of maintenance in rural areas, or the family division, we haven't stood still simply because these have been times of restraint. I think members will have concerns that they'll want to raise. I hope I can address them.

But I think in going through the Estimates they will be able to see that we continue to deliver the programs with respect to which we're ch arged by statute, but at the same time we have been able to innovate in very significant and major ways and to continue to be able to say that the justice system in Manitoba takes second place to no one, or no other such system in Canada. When the Min isters of the Justice and Attorneys General convene, as they will be convening in Vancouver at the beginning of Octo ber, some of the items on the agenda will be in fact inspired by things that have taken place in Manitoba.

Manitoba, at those meetings, is looked to as a leader of some sign ificance. So I commend these Estima tes to the commi ttee and I'm prepared to deal with them on a line-by-line basis. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm prepared just to go right into the Esti mates. First of all, just as a matter of clarification - and if the Attorney-General wants his staff to be introduced. MR. CHAIRMAN: Staff would like to come forward - the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Chairperson, it looks more like an army, this staff, but you never know. Mr.

Chairman, I introduc e the Deputy Attorney General, Tanner Elton; the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division and Criminal Prose cutions, John Guy; Director of Admi nistration, Pat Sinnott; the Head of the Research and Planning Unit, Lyle Thompson; Director of Financial Admi nistration - and now disguis ed by a beard - Brian Amason; the Director of Law Enforcement Services, Cha rlie Hi ll; Comm unications Officer, Linda Lee; and the Director of Legal Services, Ron Perozzo. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Mem ber for St. Norb ert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General, first of all, indicate the res ponsibility of this department with respect to translation of the statutes, the funding for translation in Cultural Affairs? - but I notice you've referred to it in your opening remarks. HON. R. PENNER: The legal translation unit is now entir ely with the office of Legislative Counsel. General translation is alm ost exclusiv ely with the Department of Cultural Affairs.

There are one or two general translators in our department, but basically what we took over from Cultural Affairs was the legal tanslation unit and, of course, we've developed it since. MR. G. MERCIER: Perhaps in anticipation of dealing with that subject tomorrow, then the Attorney-General might have his department prepare a status report as to where we stand and contracts that have been let for translation since the decision, etc.? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, we have all of that information and can give it at any time. MR. G. MERCIER: The Victim Assistance Program, where will they be found in the Estimates? HON. R.

PENNER: They will be found under Item 2, Criminal Justice. MR. G. MERCIER: A general question - is there a provision in these Estimates for I think the cost-of living increase which is due to Civil Service in Octo ber, or am I incorrect in that? Or is it the contract runs out at the end of September? HON. R. PENNER: There's one further increase within the existing cont ract that comes in - is it October 1 or September 1 and it's the cost-of-living one. MR. G. MERCIER: Is there provision for it in these Estimates? HON. R. PENNER: No, there isn't specific provision within the Estimates. MR. G.

MERCIER: How does the Attorney-General expect to give his staff this cost-of-living increase? HON. R. PENNER: The direction from the Min ister of Finance - who has, not a lean and hungry look, but a hungry look - is to find from within. 3070

Monda y, 18 August , 1986 - - ---- - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - -- ~.A R. G. r; ":;?c .... p . \/Veil ' lak e it the cos t of living has n ot yet ::-G0 •• r · ' ,ated . I would imag ine it's in the area j ;,erct:nl to 4 per cent. HON. R. PENNER: Right , but we 'll only be dealing with half-a-year , so it will be roughly 2 p ercent of the salary portion. MR. G. MERCIER: How much does that amount to then? HON. R. PENNER: About $630,000 net. MR. G. MERCIER: Is that the reason for the department's expenditure control policy that was issued on July 3 of this year? HON. R.

PENNER: That's one of the reasons or one of the ways of doing it, but that's the primary reason for that policy . One of the ways that we hope to achieve that saving is, where possible, to slow up on some hirings. That will produce another part of the money that we will have to find. MR. G. MERCIER: I take it , that's a direction then that's gone to each and every department. The Attorney-General's Department has not been singled out . HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that's right. The direction to find the salary increase from within has gone to every department. MR. G. MERCIER: We 're on 1.(b) , I take it , Mr. Chairman .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we can begin with Resolution 16, and defer 1.(

a) and begin with 1.(b) . The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Let me say first of all, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information that we 've received. I only wish I would have received it last Friday so I would have had more of an opportunity to consider it in some detail before tonight. However, with respect to Executive Support , I take it there's no change in the manpower according to the Supplementary Information that's been distributed . Just quickly for the record , would the Attorney-General indicate how many executive assistants or special assistants he now has? HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, I have one executive assistant and the position of special assistant is job-shared between two people, who work three days and two days a week respectively and alternate two days and three days in the following week . MR. G. MERCIER : Who are those people? HON. R. PENNER: Those people are Nancy Allen and Lea Girman. MR. G. MERCIER: Does Executive Support include the salaries of the Deputy and the two Assistan t Deputies? 3071 HON. R. PENNER : Just the Deputy . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Guy 's salary would be under Criminal Ju stice then , is that it? HON. R. PENNER: It would. MR. G. MERCIER: And Mr.

Larsen's under Legal Services? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Larsen's is found in Research and Planning . MR. G. MERCIER: Why would it be in Research and Planning? HON. R. PENNER: It should be displayed and will be displayed in the Justice Division in the next set of Estimates, but it was transitional as we were forming the Research and Evaluation unit. MR. G. MERCIER: Is Mr. Larsen going on a leave of absence? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, he in fact leaves , I think , effective September 1. MR. G. MERCIER: Is this a legislative drafting course he is taking or involved in? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G.

MERCIER: What percent age of his salary is he rec eiving ? HON. R. PENNER: 25 percent . MR. G. MERCIER: Has that gone through the Civil Service Commission, or is that standard terms for leave of absence? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: He is not replac ed or who is handling his responsibility there? HON. R. PENNER: It is being bulletined and a new person will be hired. He will not be coming back to that position . MR. G. MERCIER: So the position of ADM on the civil side is in the process of being bulletined? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: That 's fine. I have no further questions on that item. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(1) - pass; 1.(b)(2)- pass. 1.(

c) Research , Planning and Evaluation - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I believe the Attorney-General indicat ed in his remarks that there was an increase - no, it's in th e highlights . Ther e is an increa se in this MR. G. MERCIER: Well I take not beencalcula of 3 toperce

Monday, 18 August, 1986 particular area of 2.5 staff persons. The Attorney General, I belie ve last year, had indicated - pardon me, I don't recall the name. There was someone from the university who was on contract. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Steve Brickey started that department under contr act and, when his contract expired, when back to the university . MR. G. MERCIER: Who is in the department now then? HON. R. PENNER: Lyle Thompson is Acting Head of the unit, and then we have the following.

We have the ADM Justice, who's located in those 6.46; a secretary to the ADM Justice; the Acting Director of Research, Lyle Thompson; three researchers; and .46 weeks of term time for support. MR. G. MERCIER: Are those positions all filled now? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. Well, I'm not so sure about the .46 weeks. Are they all filled? I'm sorr y, there is one vacant research position. MR. G. MERCIER: Pardon me, could I ask Mr. Thompson's backg roun d? Ho w did he get that appointment? HON. R. PENNER: He come s from within the department. Mr. Thompson was with Court Services. MR. G. MERCIER: For how long? HON. R.

PENNER: For three years, and then became the assistant to the Deputy Attorney-General, and is now in the position of Acting Director of Research and Planning. He has a background in the Social Scienc es. MR. G. MERCIER: I noticed in the projects in process that the Attorney-General has passed out, that one of the programs in volves the Child Ab use Witness Program.

It goes on to say: "An evaluation will be conducted of the Child Abuse Unit of the Winnipeg Police Depar tment." I don't know whether that's under way, but could the Mini ster indicate whether there is any overl apping or, I would hope, discussion with the two persons, Dr. Sigurdson and Professor Reid, who have been appointed by the government to conduct the review of child abuse in general, which does involve very much the prosecution of child abuse offences? HON. R. PENNER: This program is independent of the Sigurdson-Reid Study. They're aware of this to make sure there is no overlap or that they mesh properly.

It's being conducted by Diane Hryshko, some funding from the City of Winni peg and from other agencies. MR. G. MERCIER: There is some communication there in any event? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: I noticed also one of the projects involves policing services on Manitoba reserves, and there will be an extensive research study of each Indian reserve in Manitoba. Is that study under way and when did that start? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it is under way, in fact, under the direction of Charlie Hill.

We've had a report - I don't think I have it with me right at the moment, but it's available - on the proposal from the southeast regional council with respect to the development of the equivalent of the DOTC Program. It's in that context that we're taking a look at the very difficult question of policing on the reserves.

We had counted upon being able to do this in associat ion with the Federal Government, but there have been so many changes in the Solicitor-General 's Department in recent times that we're advised that the Solicit or-General 's Department federally is initiating its own review of policing on the reserves. We hope to be able to mesh with the study that they're doing.

In the meantime, we've concent rated our study with respect to a continuing evaluation of the DOTC Program and evaluation of the proposal from southeast, and while we're looking at programs of that kind, I must say that I remain to be convinced that programs that would establish tribal council police forces to police several reserves really are cost effective. I don't think they are. So at the same time we're looking at the 3- B Program within the RCMP and the special constables within the RCMP.

We want to take a look, together with the !eds, at the Band Constable Program, their training and so on, to see whether in fact the question of policing on the reserves can best be handled under the aegis of the RCMP. The reason for my inclination in that direction is that the RCMP have an established infrastructure in terms of communications and transport; and where you set up alternative police forces, rather than look at policing in the community, you, to a very considerable extent, have to duplic ate some of those costs and that's why it isn't always cost efficient. MR. G.

MERCIER: How long will the Dakota-Oji bway Tribal Council project be evaluated? I recollect it was being evaluated five or six years ago and the Attorney General indica tes its under ongoing evalua tion. How many more years can we expect to hear that it's under ongoing evaluat ion? HON. R. PENNER: Not too many, I hope. The member's mem ory is good. There was an evaulation that was comple ted in December of 1982, I think, about then, but it was inconclu sive, quite frankly . It said there are some good things about the program but there are some troublesome things about the program.

The supporters of the DOTC Program said, well, look at the good things. We said, yes, we recognize that there are some good things, that the program means a lot to the feelings of the people on those reserves to be able to manage their own affairs, but at the same time there were some concerns in terms of training and turnover that we wanted to look at over a longer period of time. We have representatives, of course, both from the de partment and from the RCM P on the Pol ice Commi ssion adminis tering the program. We continue to get reports. There are some solid achievements in 3072

Monday, 18 August, 1986 the program. In fact, I'm hoping to get an interim report from the RCMP analyzing - I think we received a report on DOTC not too long ago which gave a breakdown of crime statistics which seemed to indic ate that, in fact, the amount of time and involvement of the RCMP in policing on the reserves had now decreased signifi cantly. That was one of the problems we raised earlier on. We said we don't yet see the actual decrease of work by the adjacent RCMP detachments. There is some indication that that situation might have improved.

We 're doing an analysis of that report, but we haven't got a final date for completing the evaluat ion. We 're certainly going to go with the program through this fiscal year and probably one more. MR. G. MERCIER: I have a couple of other questions. Could the Attorney-General ind icate where we would find grants from his department in his Estimates? HON. R. PENNER: Under Law Enforcement Services, basically . MR. G. MERCIER: There may only be a few. HON. R. PENNER: There are very, very few.

There is a grant, and I don't know if it's displ ayed on a line, to the Canadian Association of Provincial Judges, to the Uniform Law Com missioners, to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, but these are all in the order of $2,000 - $3,000.00. The Canadian Provincial Judges Association -$3,000, the same as the year before; Uniform Law Conference - $4,000, the same as the year before; Dakota-Ojibway - $15 0,000, the same as the year before; the City of Winnipeg Alertmobile - $2,500; that's the last of a special grant. A partial year will follow after this year.

We no longer grant from the department the grant to MARL. That is in the Law Foundation Program. That's it. MR. G. MERCIER: Is the Attorney-General responsible for proclamation of The Freedom of Information Act? HON. R. PENNER: No. Wel l, in a sense, as a member of Cabinet, I presume there is a colle ctive decision but, basically , the impl ementation of the program is under the leadership of the Min ister of Cultural Affairs. MR. G. MERCIER: The supplementa ry information indicates that this area also deals with matters relating to the Constitu tion, is that correct? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General nodded in the affirmative. The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General indic ate the position of the Province of Manitoba with respect to the five basic points that have been raised by Premier Bourassa? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, as the Premier has stated, we feel very strongly that matters relating to the economy , particularly the agricultural crises, problems associated with the trade talks ought to be given somewhat greater prominence as matters of national concern.

However, we do recognize the importance of Quebec coming back into the constitutional process. That's particularly important when you look at the fact that it's very difficult to move along the path of other constitutional amendments, let's say, dealing with aboriginal rights, without the actual formal participation of Quebec. Quebec does partici pate informally , incidentally , at the aboriginal talks; that is, they're represented at the table and they speak on the issues.

If the proposal were to emanate from these talks, Quebec would not be one of those who would be numbered among the participating provinc es and its vote as a province and its vote in terms of population would not be there. Abstaining could, in fact, prevent a constitutional amendment either there or with respect to the Senate or other issues from going through. So it's important, for historical reasons, for practical reasons, that Quebec should be involved.

All the provinces, without exception, feel that the effort must be made to find a way of meeting some of the concerns expressed by Quebec, so that in fact Quebec can join the constitutional family. At the Edmonton meeting, the Premiers agreed to engage in the process. They went no further although some of the Premiers were prepared to express thems elves on the one issue which has caught most of the media and, indeed, I expect the public attention, having to do with the issue of the veto.

The Prem ier, in my view quite properly, said quite strongly we are not supportive of a general veto and, in that light, we were not supportive of what appeared to be an alternative position developed by Mr. Bourassa of a 75 percent formula, seven provinces with 75 percent of the population because, in effect, that meant certainly a veto by another name, not only for Quebec but for Ontario as well. We feel quite strong ly, I certainly feel personally - I'm a fed eralis t and I don't like the notion of either provincial or regional vetos.

Having said that, I would just add it's clear that the Constitution Act 1982 already has a number of vetos in it. So it's not that this is being invented for the first time. Ho wever, that's the only one of the five proposals advanced by Quebec upon which the Premier , speaking on behalf of the government, and I hope the people of Manitoba, has commented and I would not want to comment any further. It's not because of diffidence, which doesn't sit easily upon my shoulders, but because Quebec has not really advanced its proposals in any formal way so that we really see what they mean.

They talk about having some different kind of a say with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's fairly nebulous. That has to be nailed down before we formulate a response. So, too, with respect to some concerns about the control over the federal spending power, that certainly is a very complex matter and would have to be nail ed down before we would want to comment. MR. G. MERCIER: I appreciate that the Premier and the Attorney-General now have tried to point out what are more important, and subjects which have greater priori ty, and I don't disagree with that. But the subject 3073

Monday, 18 August, 1986 is on the table and it's worthwhile discussing it for a moment. I think, as the Attorney-General is probably aware, Quebec would have end orsed and signed the Constitution if there had been one - I shouldn't say slight amendment - but one further amendment in that

section pertaining to a situation where powers by amendment are taken away from a province. They would have been satisfied to have had - that was Mr. Leve sque at the time - reas onable com pensation. I was disappointed at the time because I thought that was not something that was going to happen very often, certainly , and could have been done at the time. I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate whether the province would support going that far to accommodate Quebec. HON. R. PENNER: I think there's certainly room for discussion in that area.

The thing that we would be concerned about is a general right of provinces, because others sort of want to get onto the bandwagon, of being able to opt out of federal spending programs and receive compensation.

Again, and perhaps speaking as the government of a province which can't command the resources of Ontario and Quebec, we think that federal social programs have been tremendously important in shaping the kind of country we are, whether it's in the area of medical services, support for post-secondary education, unem ployment insurance programs, Canada Pension Plans, and although in some of these instances, Quebec has its own plan, we want to make sure that in going down that road even a bit further, we don't create the conditions for the bulk anization of Canada in terms of the delivery of its social programs.

In that way, you might end up where, as former Premier William Davis said, Ontario would be laughing all the way to the bank. Ontario might be laughing all the way to the bank but the disadvantaged regions would be, I think, in a very weakened position. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (cX 1) to 1. (eX2) were each read and passed. Computer Services (fX 1) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate just what projects are under way within this particular area at the present time. HON. R.

PENNER: We have for this year the purchase of word processing equipment for the Legislative Counsel and the Legislative Review Section, developing a very good program which enables us to not only do the ongoing legi slative program and produce copy very quickly , and indeed end up with print-ready copy, but in terms of having available the kind of program that would allow for continual updating and revi sion, we want to get that equipment in place. So that accounts for about $340,000 of the proposed expenditure.

We are, with some cost-sharing from the Federal Government, about 80 percent in fact, expending about $90,000 on the development of an inter-departmental - because it's between ourselves and Commu nity Services - youth tracking syst em. This is, of course, required under The Young Offenders Act. Further work on the Land Titles system of $153, 000; we're in about the second year of a five-year program in this development. We 've completed the management study; the general register is operatio nal.

The Certificate of Title system looks like it will be all- systems-go in Winnipeg, at least, by June of '87 and other aspects of the program will foll ow. We've just about completed, and will complete in this year, a trust accounting system for the Office of the Public Trustee and the balance of about 15 0,000 are smaller items: systems opera tions, sup port maintenance, equipment, renewal, and things of that kind. MR. G. MERCIER: Has any consideration been given at the present time to implement ation of a computer system in the Criminal Prosecutions area that was being looked at a number of years ago? HON. R.

PENNER: We would like to do it and I think it would be important to do it. We started down the road, as the member will recall, on the so-called promise system and invested a little money in that, but put it on hold. In a way, perhaps it's fortunate that we did becaus e quite recently , within the last year , Saska tchewan has introduced a system which we think perhaps is an improvement on the promise system. We want to have a look at it and I hope that in the next fiscal year, we'll be able to begin work on the system for the Criminal Jus tice area. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Attorney-General referred to The Young Offenders Act. If I recollect correct ly, was there agreement with the Federal Government on cost recovery for the introduction of The Young Offenders Act? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, there was, in a number of areas. One area which was not provided for at all, or at least certainly not significantly , was in terms of institutions. I think that is borne entirely by the province.

But in terms of the establishment of some of the things that are associated with the court itself, I think we received some assistance that was reflected in last year's Estimates totalling some $300,000 to $400,000.00. Some of that was associated with Legal Aid and there's still some cost-sharing on the Legal Aid side. That, incidentally , is being now blended with the Adult Program. MR. G. MERCIER: Is that ongoing cost-sharing or was this a bulk payment on the introduction? HON. R. PENNER: There are two kinds.

There were some that met initial cost in the development of a record-keeping sys tem, particularly; some that was used to set up the means of providing Legal Aid, that is, the infrastructure, the office, and things of that kind. Some of it is ongoing; the cost-sharing of the Legal Aid actually provided to young offenders is ongoing. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (fX1) -p ass; 1. (fX2)- pass. 1. (gX 1) Communications - the Member for St. Nor bert. MR. G. MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General perhaps just quickly indicate where the reduction is in Other 3074

Monday, 18 August, 1986 Expenditures? What commun ications will not be going out this year? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, basically there was a significant amount of money spent last ye ar on the Family Law pamphlet. That is now out and incidental ly, again, a very popular item. I think 25,000 of them have been distributed since April 1s t, so that this money is the money for working out substantial pieces and we have no substantial pieces on line for this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (g)( 1 )-pass; 1. (g)(2)- pass. Item 2. Criminal Justice, Resolution 17, 2.(

a) Crown Prosecutors - the Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Let me just introduce a small item that had come to my attention. It involved some resolutions by the Rhineland School Division and was begun by another, Morris Macdonald School Division, concerns by trustees with respect to fines imposed upon drivers who pass school buses while loading and unloading stud ents. I received a copy of a commun ication that was sent to the Attorney-G eneral on April 30 of this year . I wonder if he could indicate whether any study was done on the amount of fines levied in such cases. HON. R.

PENNER: I responded quite affirmatively to Rhineland indicating that we indeed thought they had raised a legitima te concern and directed it to the Criminal Justice Division to look into what the fine structure was in such instances and to make some re com mendations. I haven 't received the recommendations yet. MR. G. MERCIER: I wonder, could the Attorney-General undertake to perhaps provide me with a copy of his response to this Morris Macdonald School Division when that information is put together? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I'll do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, how much did the New Democratic Party promise to spend on crime prevention during the election? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know whether that question is within the purview of the Min ister . The Attorney-Gen eral, although I question the order of the question. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I see John Campbell at the back of the room; he may remem ber. Perhaps more to the point, there is an Interdepartmental Justice Committee between Comm unity Services and the Department of the Attorney-General which is presently developing a proposal for a crime prevention centre.

One of the things we're looking at is the possibility of the involvement of a community agency, such as the Manitoba Institute of Criminol ogy, in such a project. There is money in the Community Services Estima tes - there is some authority from Treasury Board for the expenditure of money to design a proposal for the development of the crime prevention centre. MR. G. MERCIER: How much is the province looking at then, in terms of the construction costs of this crime prevention centre? HON. R.

PENNER: I don't think it was envisaged or indeed - unless my memory forsakes me entirely - suggested that we would be building a building. The notion was a centre, it might be on leased premises, where a function would be housed to coordinate the work of existing agencies to do rese arch, to assist some of the existing agencies and to come forward with proposals for new initiatives. One of the things, for example, Mr. Mer cier, which is being looked at is, we've had . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Refer to members by constitue ncy, please. HON. R. PENNER: . . . the Member for St.

Nor bert - wel l, at least I didn't say Ge rry. As you kn ow we've had a mi nisterial advis ory comm ittee on dr ink ing and driving. That has not functioned as satisfactorily as I would have liked. One of the things that is being looked at is the development of further work in terms of meeting the menace of drinking and driving through the crime prevention centre. Indeed, another alternative which is being looked at, although the two are not mutually exclusive, is having the traffic safety commi ttee take some of the initiative in that area.

So, the proposal is a functional proposal; a proposal to look at ways of increasing, not merely the profile of crime prevention but the actual activities, to add to ongoing activities to encourage community involvement. I hope the Member for St. Norbert and others will agree it would be a mistake to do anything that would lessen community involvement. I don't think there can really be effective crime prevent ion without grassroot involvement. MR. G. MERCIER: Without question, Mr. Chairman, there has to be community involvement and there probably is a great deal of community involvement at the present time.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate who asked the government to coordinate the activities of these groups? Which groups asked the government to get involved in coordinating their activities? HON. R. PENNER: I don't think it was ever suggested that there had been a specific request from one or more groups that this be done. Certainly, there was an expression of opinion from many groups involved in crime prevention, that they wanted more assistance and encouragement and support from the government.

It was in terms of that kind of request, which was not a request to establish a particular kind of program or to house it in a particular kind of way, that led to the proposal. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I think perhaps I would caution the Attorney-General not to get involved in establishing some centralized bureaucracy in this particular field, because I think there are groups and with individuals from the community involved in it who spend a great deal of time in this area and some of whom have been very, very successfu l, and what I find they need perhaps is a photocopier from time to time and some assistance in typing. 3075

Monday, 18 August, 1986 Some smaller items are much more important to many of these groups than to have a centralized bureaucracy set up to coordina te their activities. That's not generally what the y really need. I think the com munity gr oups need a little bit of fina ncial assistance. There's a great deal of time and effort being contri buted by them as they are volunteers. That's one of the primary needs. HON. R. PENNER: I think that's good advice and I certainly accept it. I'm just noticing a recent report from the RCMP on this excellent Crime Preve ntion Program.

There are similar works done by the Winnipeg Police Department. I think the work that is done by the police departments, augment ed by the work of com mun ity groups, Neighbourhood Watch, many other programs, should be strengthened but by no means replaced by a bureaucratic overlay. I accept that. MR. G.

MERCIER: The bill that is now before - well, it's now passed Second Read ing, passed through comm ittee, The Justice for Victims Crime Act - I think in essence establishes a commit tee that will be set up to make recommendations on how the mone y earned from the surcharge and fines is to be spent, will the fun ding be subject to the Attorn ey -Gener al's Department approval or Treasury Board approval? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that is the legislation calls for recommendations to be made to the government through the Attorney-General. MR. G.

MERCIER: How much is in the budget for Assistance to Victims of Crime this year? HON. R. PENNER: I'll have to take that as notice because it's found in various programs. This is independent of the Criminal Injuries Compensation which stands on its own. But for example we find, I believe if I'm not mistaken, under witness, travel and fees, if one looks at the operating expend itures on Page 24 of the supplementary material much of the money that we spend - in fact all of the money that we spend - in victim, witness assistance is encomp assed in these items.

There's some that may be found in court services as well, but the bulk of the mone y is in these items. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Attorney-General provide me with perhaps a breakdown of the Crime Prev ention and Victim Assistance Programs that are contained within his department, appreciating that that's difficult because with respect to assistance to victims, is it fair to say that you want every body who is working in the system to be helpful and supportive? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, we could do most of that.

We'll have somet hing for the member by tomorrow, certainly breaking out some of the main things; the victim witness coordinator and expenditures that are associated there. I think we'll be able to pull thos e. Staff assures me that we can do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General indicate what and if perhaps are there any plans for specific accommodation for victims of crime in law courts buildings? HON. R. PENNER: I'm not sure if this is getting at specifically the issue, but we're concerned about the special needs of special groups.

One of the things that's presently being designed under the leadership of the ADM Criminal Justice, at least in terms of concept - the actual design will be done by designers and so on, is a court facility that would be especially for children, that where a case involves the hearing of the testimony of a child, we would try to have one courtroom that would be particularly suited in terms of scale and the atmosphere, even the colour coordination. Things of that kind are presently being worked on. MR. G.

MERCIER: I think if the Attorney-General can provide me with that breakdown of programs in the area of assistance to victims, it's a subject we can go into in greater depth than last year. Also, we would want to know exactly how the election promise is being implemented. HON. R. PENNER: Crime preve ntion? MR. G. MERCIER: The crime preve ntion centre. I believe that's what was talked about during the election. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a X1)- the Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: I wish that I would have received this information, "Justice in Manitoba - Key Indicators" beforehand because there are statistics in here that relate to crime. I guess, in particular, on Page 4, we're talking about offences against persons. I recollect, in 19 84 - and one of the difficulties with this, statistics are used di fferently by di fferent people and the Canadian Justice statistics that seem to come out are with respect to murder, with respect to violent crime. You get the break and enter type of offence come out.

Perhaps dealing with this Page 4, offences against persons seem to indicate and do indicate, as I say, steady incr eases in the number of these offences in each of the quarters reported for 19 84 and 19 85. On the weekend, there was a news report on the City of Winnipeg Police Department's 19 85 report, which indicated that although the murder rate dropped, the number of attempted murders jumped 40 percent; and that robberies, which had decreased by 13 percent in 19 84, increased by 22 percent in 1985; and that sexual offences, after jumping by 23 percent in 19 84, stayed at the same level.

Without question, it appears that we are living in a much more violent community than many people have for a number of years. Would the Attorney-General accept the statistic that about 90 percent of the serious crime is comm itted by about 10 percent of offen ders, that it's a relatively small number of people who are committing all of the violent crime? HON. R. PENNER: The figure with which I'm perhaps a bit more familiar is the percentage of violent crimes 3076

Monday, 18 August, 1986 - the number of violent crimes as a percentage of all crimes. As the Member for St. Norbert knows, because of the kind of publicity violent crimes receive, this percentage is vastly over-est imated by the population at la rge. In recent studies done by the Department of Justice in Ottawa, in fact admin istered by Gallup for the Department of Justice, people over-est imated the amount of violent crime by about 500 percent.

They thought that the percentage of violent crime as a percentage of the total crime was in excess of 50 percent, close to 60 percent, where in fact it's about 7 percent or 8 percent of the total. Having said that, of course, that still means there's a large amount of violent crime that is of serious concern to the community and ought to be.

Whether or not those offences against the person are commi tted by a relatively small group - in an absolute sense, that's right - but whet her, as the member suggested, 90 percent of those crimes are commi tted by 10 percent of offenders, I don't have a statistic that would confirm that or deny it. MR. G.

MERCIER: I wonder if I could ask for the Attorney-General's opinion on a suggestion that was made by our party during the election, and that was in the case of repeat violent offenders, that a special gr oup of prosecutors within the Prosec utions Department be assigned to deal with those cases as expeditiously as possible. HON. R. PENNER: I consider ed that at the time the suggestion was made. The fact is we have - probably because we pay too much - the vast portion of our Crown prosecutors are high ly-experienced and, in my view, highly effec tive.

In fact, you do have a special group of those who are alr eady experienced and effe ctive, who function with respect to the speedy trials and assize trials, which encompass the most serious offences. Those are the kinds of trials where people like Dave Rampersad and George Dangerfield and Jack Montgo me ry, our best prosecutors, those with a very high success rate, are the ones who take the most serious crimes to trial. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as we said, there are all sorts of sources of statistics, all of which are bad, the results.

The Attorney-General supplied us with statistics that indicate steady incr eases in the number of offences against persons for each of the quarters reported for'84 and'85. 19 84 was the year in which, generally speak ing, this province in a number of areas had the highest per capita number of offences in the area of murder or violent crime. We also have significant - total num ber of offences against property were substantially higher than the number of offences against persons, but it also shows signif icant increases.

Just let me ask the Attorney-General this: What is his answer to curtailing and reducing the growth in serious crime that is taking place in the City of Winnipeg and in this province? HON. R. PENNER: If you're asking what my suggestion is in terms of what the Department of the Attorne y General can do, I think I can answer that somewhat more read ily and less theoretically than if I were being asked about how society as a whole is to accomplish that very worthwhile goal, but I'l l take a try at both.

With respect to the functioning of the Department of the Attorney-General, it must be remembered that the Department of the Attorney-General does not administer a police force. We have a cont ract with the RCMP, pursuant to which we have some input in terms of general policy of the RCMP. It hasn't really been suggested, I think, by anyone that the RCMP is an ineffective police force. We don't have direct, even in fact indirect administration of the Winnipeg Pol ice Department, the only other major police force in the province.

But I don't think anybody could really suggest looking at any set of statistics that the Winnipeg Police Department is incompetent or inefficient. I think that they are doing on the whole an excellent job. But in any event, to the extent that one could say, well, if there were more police or if the police were better depl oyed or if you had less police in cruiser cars and more on the streets, this or that or the other thing would happen, all of which is in the realm of specu lation. We simply don't control the police forces. So what does the Department of the Attorney-General do?

We obviously have the prosecutorial function, and I may say that our success rate in terms of criminal prosecut ions is as good and, I would think, in some instances better than anywhere else in the country. If it is felt that sentences are inadequate, we have an appeal comm ittee that meets, I think, on a weekly basis or at least on a regular basis to review suggestions that come forward from the line prosecutors who feel that sentences in particular cases are inadequate in terms of the jurisprudence in that area. We appeal, and basically we have a fairly high success rate in terms of those appeals.

We can and are proposing as a government to try to do more in the area of crime prev ention. I think, in terms of many crimes, property crimes particularly, crime prevention does play a significant role. Whether it's Operation Identification or Neighbourhood Watch, the re have been some successes that have been noted. The Crime Stoppers Program incidentally has produced some successes, and we are supportiv e of that.

But you know, having said that and concerned to do the best that we can with our resources and within our jurisdiction, I think we have to, all of us, take one or two steps back and look over the whole scene and ask, why is it that, not only in Manitoba, but basically across the country and inde ed in all western societies of which I'm aware, crime is on the increase. I can't speak for the United States, which has about the highest homicide rate in the western world. It cannot be said of the United States that this is a society which doesn't place much value on law and order.

In fact, some would suggest that it places a very high value on law and order. It can't be suggested that the national leadership of the United States is weak on crime, and yet the amount of violent crime and the number of homicides is higher in the United States than anywhere else in the western world. But in Canada - and here I can speak not, let me say at once, with authority so much as from some knowledge - I would think that there are a couple of factors, three factors which I would try to pinpoint as contributing to some extent to the increase of crime.

There is an in crease of crime, and it is a matter of 3077

Monday, 18 August, 1986 concern. One of these is the increasing urbanization of society. I think that it is true that, in the more anony mous, alienated urban context, there is more crime than in the smal ler, mo re settled rural communities. I think the continuing high rate of youth unemployment has to be indicated as a factor. It's not only - and it might not even be indirectly feed ing as a variable into property crimes, but it's a case where young people with all that energy and desir e to go ahead and do something are frustrated about every aspect of their lives.

There's such a gap between what they see on television as the goodies of lif e, and what they actually have for thems elves that they're not only led in some inst ances, obviously not in all instances by any means, to property crimes, but to frustration and to vandalism and hooliganism and acting out, as it is sometimes described. I think a third factor in all of this and one with respect to which insufficient attention is still being paid is the portrayal of violence in the media and on television and in the films.

It should not be assumed for a moment that the Ram bo-type film doesn't lead to a Rambo type mental ity. The idea of the legitimation of the use of weaponry and viol ence is taking place at an incr easingly rapid rate. Taking all of those factors into consideration, you begin I think to sense - and I'll add one more - those thing s which can 't simply be met by more law enforcement. We could never put enough police persons on the streets. Winnip eg could not afford it. The Province of Manitoba could not afford to double the size of the RCMP, increasing our costs from 28 million to 56 million.

But in my view, that increased expenditure would not deal with these underlying causes. The last of them, and maybe it's part and parcel or flows out of the previous three that I mentioned, is the breakdown of family life. For whatever reason, there is an increasing breakdown of family life. I'm old fashioned enoug h, I guess, to belie ve very strongly in the family and the socializing influence of good family life. Here I'm not speaking against separation or divorce. That takes place, and sometimes it's perhaps better that it does. But the general breakdown of family life has to be a contributing factor. MR. G.

MERCIER: Has the department examined the number of offences that take place while people are released on temporary absence passes or parole? HON. R. PENNER: No, we don't have that kind of data. Probably it's more readily available in Community Services and Corr ect ions. MR. G. MERCIER: Is the department satisfied with the communication that exists with Crown prosecutors and perhaps even judges with respect to the granting of parole and day passes and temporary absence passes, etc.? HON. R.

PENNER: As I say, this is a function which, because it falls primarily within the Department of Corrections, in the Department of Community Services and Corrections, we don't have a primary function for. We have, on a related aspect, where we do have a 3078 more direct role, we have discussed recently, in our most recent meeting with Chief Stephen and other members of the senior administration of the Winnipeg Police Depart ment, concerns that the Chief has about multiple bail, that is persons already out on bail or who have been failures on bail being admitted to bail again.

This is an area more directly within our jurisdiction and I'm advised by ADM John Guy that we're trying to get a handle on exactly what is the frequency of such admissions to bail and what are some of the known results of such admissions to bail. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, would the Attorney General be inclined to include Probation Services as part of the Attorney-Gene ral's Department? HON. R. PENNER: No.

I really do believe that a functional separation of res ponsibility for prosec ution, the prosecution of criminals and the way in which convicted criminals are subsequently dealt with in jails and in probation projects, that those should be clearly separated. The Mi nis ters do speak to each other. We have, I mentioned earlier , formed an inter-departmental justice commit tee and they have regular monthly meet ings between senior representatives of my department, senior representatives of Community Services from involving the deputies of both departments, the Director of Corrections and other officials. MR. G.

MERCIER: On another matter, has the Attorney General examined the concerns of Northern Indian bands with respect to the leniency of sentences given in Northern cases which seems to be their primary concern? HON. R. PENNER: There have been some concerns, although they're not always of the exact same nature from The Pas, from Little Grand, from Pukatawagan and from Nor way House. We are concerned about the issues that have been raised and we have begun to get some of the statistics, to examine them and to examine into some anomalies that have been identified. I'll mention those in a moment.

What we want to do is to do an in-depth current study of the admin istration of criminal justice in the North, not over an extended period of time and not, I hope, at great cost. But I propose to go up to some of the communities that I mentioned and others in mid Octo ber, and we will be involving the Research and Evaluation Department. In fact, we've already received some material on northern justice. There is material, in fact, currently available on youth justice in the North. We want to pull these toget her.

Having said that, the prelimi nary observation that I would make is that, aside from one particular area, there doesn't readily appear to be an anomaly between sentences handed out for like offences in northern communities and in southern communiti es. That is to be expected, I suppose, because, aside from the circuit handled by the two judges from Thompson, Judge Drapack and Judge How ell, a lot of the northern circuit is handled by southern judges. The one anomaly is in the conviction rate of cases heard by the judge from The Pas. That may or may not be an anomaly.

Monday, 18 August, 198 6 I said there is an apparent anomaly that we're presently looking into where - I shouldn't have said the conviction rate, I really should have said the acquittal rate - the acquittal rate appears to be out of line with what is commonly accepted to be the conviction rate in a statistically significant way. Normally , because I think the police are pretty efficient, as I said earli er, and do their job, most of those who are arrested either plead guilty or are found guilty on trial. The general conviction rate at trial is in excess of 70 percen t, close to 80 percent.

A sampling of some of the acquittal rates before Judge Martin of The Pas shows an acquittal rate that is almost the equivalent of the conviction rate that are found in other instances. Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions on the basis of those numbers, but those numbers do cause us concern and we want to examine them further. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, the Attorney-General has announced a number of programs to deal with impaired driving and that problem, frankly, all of which have been suppor ted by members of the opposition.

Could the Attorney-General indicate whether these programs are resu lting in less charges for impaired driving or for failing to take the breatha lyzer, which is almost the equivalent? HON. R. PENNER: Just bear with me for a moment. I just can't put my hands on the most current statistics from the RCMP. It's my re collection that there in fact has not been a signficant reduction in the number of impaired driving ch arges in the last year and that's a cause of concern. The RCMP runs a good ALERT Program. The Winnipeg Police Department runs a good ALERT Program. There has been all kinds of publicit y.

There has been recently a very considerable incr ease in penalties enacted as amendments to the Criminal Code, there have been some fairly severe sentences handed out pursuant to these amendments. There is our program in association with the Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba where if a person is convicted twice, before that person can apply for restoration of a licence, has to go through a counselling program with the AFM, Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba. Yet the statistics, while not increasing at the same alarming rate that they were, have not gone down at a sati sfactory rate, in my view. I don't know why. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is there a continuing assessment of this particular problem by the comm ittee which the Attorney-General had appointed? There was a commi ttee with represe ntatives from the department, and Community Services, the Alcoholism Foundation, etc. Is that commit tee still meeting on any regular basis to assess the results of all of the various programs and legislative chan ges that have taken place? HON. R. PENNER: As I indica ted a bit earlier, the Minis terial Advisory Committee on Drinking and Driving has not functioned in a particularly active way in the last six months.

In di scu ssions with the Minis ter responsible for MPIC and the Traffic Safety Committee, we've agreed that since the Traffic Safety Comm ittee is a much more active and broadly-based comm ittee, that the Min ister of Highways, who is here this even ing, and myself and the Minister responsible for MPIC would work to bolster the work of the Traffic Safety Committee and to add on to its function the res ponsibility for continuing to look for ways of monitoring and dealing with drinking and driving.

One of the things that the Traffic Safety Committee has been asked to look at and will do so within the next two weeks is participation in a federal roadside sur vey program, which has taken place in other provinces and which might, if we feel it can be used profitably here in Manitoba, take place in the fall as part of a national study, trying to get a better handle on the profile of the drinking driver. We 're continuing to make our best efforts. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, may I perhaps suggest to the Attorney-General that, as he has indicated, the statistics certainly do not point to a decrease in convictions. Now, it may very well be that the number of people driving while impaired has been reduced . It seems to be that there's much more awareness of the problem in the community but with the number of convictions remaining at very signifi cant levels. I would suggest that the Attorney-General may very well wish to continue to have this commi ttee meet to assess the impl ications of what has been taking place.

There have been, from both the Federal and Provincial Governments, media campaigns on a very, very large scale; a great deal of publicity about changes in the Criminal Code that make it more difficult ; and the abolition of the License Suspension Appeal Board. While the Mi nister of Hig hways is here, I do appreciate the point that he has made about some working people losing their driver's licence. It was a point that I supported in part but the . . . abolished the appeal to, at that time, the County Court.

It appears that every thing's not working, so that it's something on which there will have to be continued assessment, I think, of what is taking place. Heaven forbid, that maybe the authorities are going to have to look at even more serious penalties as a deterrent to continued high numbers of people driving on the hig hways while impaired. HON. R. PENNER: I just found one of the slats that I was looking for. It's an RCMP stat and it reports for the Winnipeg Subdivision that the total impaired driving offences decreased marginally between '84-85 and'85- 86. The figure was 2,073 for'84-85, and 2,046 for'85- 86.

The point I wanted to make is not to take comfort in that so much as to say it's still at an unacceptably high level and to indicate that we cannot relax in the program. That's for the Winnipeg Subdivision. There was a more significant decrease in the Brandon Subdi vision, from 785 to 699; a fairly significant decrease in the Dauphin Subdivision, from 656 to 586 impaired. All of this was offset by a very substantial incr ease in the Thompson Subd ivision. So that, overal l, there's a modest decrease but it's very modest.

I think the Traffic Safety Com mittee will be looking at specific things such as the roadside su rvey. We will also be looking at the resu mption of the ALIVE campaign, which is sort of the advertising campaign, in the fall and early winter. 3079

Monday, 18 August, 1986 MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General indicate what the current backlog is in setting down for trial criminal cases? HON. R. PENNER: The backlog remai ned fairly constant at about four-and-a-half to five months. We do supply early dates for custody cases. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the objective of the newest program was to set court dates within a period of three months. Can the Attorney-General indicate why that objective has not been achieved? HON. R. PENNER: We're doing now an evaluation of the trial coordinator's program.

That's being done by the Research and Evaluation Department. We had hoped for a little more from the Trial Coordination Program. We think it's a good program. We think that it has worked to some extent. MR. G. MERCIER: There was a program, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General referred to. It was the federal provi ncia l program for videota ping, particularly children's sexual assault complaints. Does the Attorney General have any interim report on the success of that project? In fact, was it even in place? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I have an interim report.

I may not have my copy with me right at the moment and I'll bring that report tomorrow. But I can tell the member and the other mem bers of the Committee that the program is now operational in Dauphin and it's about to become operational in Winnipeg. There was a tremendous amount of work, and I think very, very good work.

I've read the interim report by the coordinator of the project and had to analyze a whole number of is sue s as to the most suitable location for the videotaping, the kind of equipment that had to be used, the legal safeguards that had to be used, the kind of protocol that would be necessary with respect to the carrying out of that project. All of these matters were very, very thoroughly research ed. I was quite impressed by the interim report to see the pains which were being taken to make sure that it got off on the right foot.

In fact, we took a little more time at the front end than was originally projected and we were able to get the agreement of the Federal Department of Justice to extend the life of the pilot project so that the operational side would not be prejudiced by the amount of time that was taken in setting it up. MR. G. MERCIER: How long will that project be? HON. R. PENNER: It was an 18 -month project and we extended it four-and-a-half months, so that the run up time will not, in fact, detract from or take away from the operational side. MR. G.

MERCIER: I suppose the interim report will ind icate if there are any prelimi nary conclusions about how su ccessful that has been? HON. R. PENNER: No, the interim report does not yet do an analysis of the actual results of the videotaping itself. 3080 MR. G. MERCIER: When that report is in will that be a public report? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, basically it would be because we'll protect anonym ity. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there's also a Victim Impact Statements Project - that is under way? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it is. MR. G. MERCIER: For ho w long has that been operating now? HON. R.

PENNER: It's been operating since Febru ary. We feel very satisfied with the way in which the program has operated to date. Some of the reports have already been received at the provincial court level. Because of the time lag, that is the time it takes through a preliminary to get to Superior Court on either a speedy or an assize, we yet haven't had the use of an impact statement on sentencing in the Court of Queen's Bench, but the first use of impact statements at that level will take place during the fall. MR. G. MERCIER: How will this project be assessed? What will be the criteria for assessing it? HON. R.

PENNER: Built into the project to begin with was the requirement of an evaluation to be done. In fact, it's a federal evaluator . There'll be a subjective and objective side to it. The su bjective side will be in a sense to find out how the victims feel about the process, whether it made them feel better about their involvement in the criminal justice system.

It will also ask judges and Crown prosecutors, defence attorneys about their reaction to the process, but it will seek to measure, and this will be more difficult admittedly , whether or not there are any noticeable differences in sentencing as a result of the use of Victim Impact Statements. MR. G. MERCIER: There are similar projects being carried out in a number of other jurisdictions? HON. R. PENNER: About four others? Three others. I think Saskatoon is one of them; North Battleford, Calgary and Vanco uver. MR. G. MERCIER: I take it you would have access to the results of those? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, we will.

In fact, there's been a meeting between the people concerned with the project here and the people concerned with their projects in the other three centres. MR. G. MERCIER: In the other jurisdictions, are the type of offences in which the statements allowed di ffere nt? For example, there's been a concern expressed that these are not allowed in murder cases or manslaughter cases in Winnipeg. Is it the same in other jurisdictions? HON. R. PENNER : There is, I'm advised, some considerable variations between one project and

Monday, 18 August, 1986 another. One of the things which may lead into that is that ours is Crown-ba sed and the others are police based . We feel on the basis of comparing notes that there has been a lot more work gone into the preparatory end of ours and it's more carefully thought out. There is some difference in offences covered between the projects, but there is sufficient commonality to allow some comparison between one city and another in addition to the comparison we want to do within Winnipeg between one division and another where the impact statements aren 't being used. MR. G.

MERCIER: Does Manitoba have a different policy with respect to plea barg aining than other provinces? HON. R. PENNER: Not to our knowledge. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General say that with some certainty? Have they examined polici es in other provinces and compared ours to theirs? HON. R. PENNER: I have some note on that. This same question was raised approxim ately a year ago and we did have a report on plea bargaining in other areas. There are some differences, but basically they are not substantial differences. But I'l l try to look that up and come back to us if I get additional information. MR. G.

MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General indicate what the stat us is of the prosecution against Dr. Morgentaler? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it's on hold pending the hearing and decision of the case from Ontario in the Supreme Court of Canada. MR. G. MERCIER: Is there any indication when that will be dealt with? HON. R. PENNER: I was speaking to the Attorney General of Ontario a week ago and he had no indication, other than he thought that case would probably be argued in this coming winter session of the court. MR. G.

MERCIER: What is the policy of the department with respect to store operators who allegedly break the province's Sunday closing law? Are there just spot prosec utions or do you dep end upon the Police Department? HON. R. PENNER: Basically we're prosecuting on complaint. You know, we're all waiting for a decision of a case that already has, I think, been argued before the Supreme Court, not based on our legislation, but based on Ontario legisla tion; a case which is called into question the validity of some Ontario legislation which is quite similar to ours.

I think that the Ontario legislation will be upheld and it would confirm the validity of ours. I think that at that stage we will review our prose cution policy to see whether or not we would urge the Winnip eg Polic e Department and other departments to be somewhat more vigorous in laying charges. MR. G. MERCIER: A few months ago I believe, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General issued a statement with 3081 respect to compensation for wrongfully convicted and imprisoned persons.

I expressed a concern at the time, just having had little opportunity to review it while the Attorney-General was making his statement to the Legislature. At first glance it appeared to me to be extremely restrictive. I think, subs equent to the Attorney-General making that statement, a number of other commentators made a similar statement. Has the Attorney-General had any second thoughts about the statement and the policy that he issued? HON. R. PENNER: No I haven 't. I obviously read those comments with interest and in most cases, with respect.

But it seemed to me there was one common problem with most of the comments and that is the failure of the authors of the comments, who I think in all instances, or at least all ins tances that I'm aware of, were not lawyers. They seemed to have a very great difficulty in unde rs tanding the mean ing in our law of the presumption of innocence, and in particular, the burden of proof which lies upon the Crown in a criminal case to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt. They failed to make the distinction between what happens in a criminal case and what happens in a civil case.

In a civil case, it's enough if the plaintiff establishes his or her or its case on a mere balance of probabilities, the merest tipping of the scale will be sufficient to establish the case one way or another . But here the Crown must, as I say, establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Very often the Crown - or not very often, but in some cases - the Crown fails to do that but this doesn't always, indeed very rarely, amount to a finding that there was no case to begin with and certainly provides the basis from which an inference can be made that the accused was innocent.

We feel that we have to tread very, very carefully here. We feel that if we were to say ok ay, we'll compensate in every case, you run into the possibility of the Criminal Justice System being rendered virtually helpless. What would be the position of the police if in fact they came to the conclusion that if they didn't have, right at the moment of first investigation, virtually an ironclad case, that they ought to go easy because perhaps this might result, at some point down the line, in compensation being paid by the state to a person who would have spent, in some ins tances, at least some time in custody .

Then you'd say well ok ay, you would perhaps maybe get around that problem by only dealing in a compensatory way with those people who had actually been incarcerated. The question then arises, well why would you make that distinction? If somebody's been arrested and charged and their name appears in the paper, they could lose their job, their wife might desert them, the kids might hate them, the neighbours won't speak to them, the dogs bite them.

They may not go to jail, but ultimately they're found not guilty; or because the Crown has something of a case but not sufficient of a case, the Crown stays the proceed ings. If we had to be engaged in compensation in each one of these cases, I think that we would bankrupt the system and bring the administration of Criminal Justice, not to a halt, perhaps it's too dramatic a way of putting it, but we would certainly make it very, very difficult to carry on the work that we have to carry on.

Monday, 18 August, 1986 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on another matter, it may not come directly within this appropriation, but what is the status of the appeal of the ruling which gave prison inmates a right to vote? HON. R. PENNER: I've very recently received a very extensive brief from the Constitutional Law Branch, to which reference has been made, giving an excellent analysis of the jurisprudence that has developed in this area across the country in light of the Charter, looking at the

section as a whole which deals not only with disqualification of criminals, but di squalification of judges and disqualification of the mentally ill. There are clearly some problems with the legislation as a whole. This is not to say that we would necessarily come to a conclusion that we can't have any disqualification. We think that in light of the decision of the court which has ruled that

section of

Section 31 of The Elections Act invalid, that we want to be able to come forward with a proposal that would meet the test of validity; in other words, to be able to say well, perhaps as other jurisdictions have, you wouldn't disqualify everyone who's serving time in an institution. Some people may be serving time for nonpayment of a fine for a very minor offence. Surely we ought to be able to distinguish between those people and people serving serious time for serious crimes.

Again, with respect to the mentally ill , can you really make a distinction between people who, as the act now has it, are in custody because of mental illness and those people who are known to be mentally ill but aren't in custody but can vote? So we're looking at a very prel iminary way, Mr. Chairperson, at the whole sect ion in light of developing jurisprude nce. At some stage, I hope a fairly early stage, we'll have to deal with it because, as you know, we're faced with a court decision which says that sect ion of The Election Act is invalid, it's on appeal.

I don't know if there's a date set for the hearing of the appeal. We 've given notice of intention to appeal. MR. CHAIRMAN: The time being 10 :00 p.m., what is your wish? MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few other matters, and I think we could relatively quickly in 10 minutes or so pass this whole page. HON. R. PENNER: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, agreed. The Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the report with respect to the number of restitution orders that remain unfulfilled, which I would assume ultimately falls within the jurisdiction of the Crown prosecutors, does the Attorney-General have any indication of the number of unfulfilled res titution orders that exist? HON. R. PENNER: We'll try to get a handle on that. My guess would be - none so bold as those who guess - is that it's probably very high. I think it's difficult to enforce restitution orders in many instances.

We're dealing so often with the impecunious or impoverished 3082 or disadvantaged, -(Interject ion)- unmotivated perhaps, yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Whe re does the ultima te resp onsibility lie for collection of that? HON. R. PENNER: Basically now with the individual, but we are looking at that to see if, to some extent, not exactly dupli cating the maintenance enforcement program, we can be of some greater assistance to those who are the recipients of res titution orders. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe both the Attorn ey-General and I have been in receipt of correspondence from a Mr.

Roy Harriott with respect to ... HON. R. PENNER: With which, I'm sorry. MR. G. MERCIER: Roy Harriott, with respect to the failure of the department not to appeal a decision from a provincial judge involving, I think, where the owner shot the dog. HON. R. PENNER: You did say he shot the dog? MR. G. MERCIER: He shot a dog. The comment quoted was: "Killing a dog by shooting it through the head doesn't constitute cruelty to animals," the judge said. This gentleman, I guess out of a genuine concern for dogs, is quite upset with the comments and the decision and then with the failure of the department not to appeal.

Could the Attorney-General give any indication as to why that decision was not appealed? HON. R. PENNER: The accused was Harriott? MR. G. MERCIER: No, he's the gentleman who corresponds. The accused was a Mr. Bazin. HON. R. PENNER: We' ll provide an answer tomo rrow. I certainly have a recollection of the incident, and no immediate recollection of the letter. The ADM has no immediate recollection of the case, but we'll try to track that down for you. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, I assume there was some reason ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, could we have some order please? It's getting difficult to hear.

If you want to have conversat ions, would you please move them to the rear? MR. G. MERCIER: I assume there was some justifiable reason for not proceed ing with the appeal. I believe what Mr . Harri ott is looking for is some sort of reassurance from the department that charges of cruelty to animals will be dealt with in a serious . . . HON. R. PENNER: We do take those charges seriously . We do take charges of cruelty to animals serious ly. I'm sure that there might have been a particular reason here and we'll try to track it down.

Monday, 18 August, 1986 MR. G. MERCIER: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)( 1) - pass; 2.(a)(2)- pass. Fatalities Inquiry Act, (b)(1 )- pass. (b)(2) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Just a question here. Is there an ever- increasing number of inquests, etc., that the Chief Medical Examiner is having to deal with? HON. R. PENNER: They're about the same, about 24 or 25, about the same in each of the last two years: 25 in'83; 30 in'84; 24 in'85. MR. G.

MERCIER: Has the Chief Medical Examiner made any rec ommendations with respect to the continued number of hangings that take place in the Remand Centre in the Public Safety Building? HON. R. PENNER: The Member for St. Norbert, no doubt, has in mind the recent rec ommendations of Judge Conn er. Those were fairly detailed and are presently being reviewed in the Department of Communi ty Services. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)( 1) -p ass; 2.( b)(2)-pass. (

c) Board of Review, (c)( 1) - the Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Just one question here. It seems to me that I read something recently that indicated - it was with respect, I guess, to the constitutionality of the existing Criminal Code provisions and how that would affect the operation of the Board of Review. I wonder if the Attorney-General could indic ate . . . HON. R.

PENNER: In fact, the Mi nister of Jus tice has tab led in the Ho use of Commons a proposed amendment to the Criminal Code, a very extensive kind dealing with the whole area of the way in which, within the criminal justice syste m, we treat the mentally ill both with respect to those to be judged not fit for standing trial and those judged to be mentally ill at the time of the commission of the offence. It's very thorough and extensive, and I think it seeks to deal with some of the constitutional problems. It would make the requirement of the Board of Review mandatory in every province.

The committal would no longer be by the Lieutenant-G overnor, but in fact would have to be the responsibili ty of the Lieutenant Governor -in-Council. So the old LGW warrants would give way to the reality of the situation. That is the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Council direction. There would be a whole number of safeguards built in in terms of the amount of time to be spent. There would be some requirement, I think, that the head of a board of review be a judge. There are all kinds of things of that kind. So I think some much needed attention is being paid to this particular

section of the Criminal Code and the adminis trative function by boards of review. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(c)( 1)-p ass; 2.(c)(2)- pass. Resolution 17: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exce eding $4,995,900 for Attorney-General, Criminal Justic e, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1987-p ass. What is your wish? Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Comm ittee, please come to order. Committee of Supply has been considering the Estima tes of the budget of the Natural Resources Department. We are now on Item No. 5.(a)( 1) Parks Administration: Salaries, 5.(a)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Mem ber for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We covered certain items before the adjournment at 5:30. I have further questions in the Department of Parks. In the Estimates last year, the then Mem ber for Lac du Bonnet being the Min ister , there was an initiation within the department about the possi bility of privatization of provincial parks. In fact, three were specifically mentioned. The Moose Lake one in the southeast corner was one of them.

A few others had consideration given to the point where I think the government was looking at accepting proposals on certain of these parks. I'm wondering if the Mi nis ter could indic ate whether that activity is being pursued any further, or what has happene d since that time, because I know of people who subm itted proposals at that time and, all of a sudden, the whole thing sort of got hung up in the air, and nothing was ever mentioned about it again. I'm wondering if the Min ister could give us an indication as to what he and his department are looking at, whether they're pursuing it any further.

If so, what stage is it at? If not, why not? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister . HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'm advised that there were, in fact, possibilities pursued, and there were tenders submitted with respect to the management of that particular park, but a decision was made subsequent to that to not pursue it through that particular avenue. I want to indic ate that, at this time, there are no particular plans to have the management of specific parks generally transferred or done through some private-sector arrangement.

But certain ly, in terms of specific project and specific services in parks, as I indicated prior to the break at 5:30 p.m., I believe it's some 10 0 projects throughout the province wherein there is private-sector involvement within the parks. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I want something a little bit more specific from this Min ister . First of all, I'd like to know why, was it initiated to the point where there were tenders being accepted and then, all of a sudden, hung on a nail. I'll leave it at that and ask the Mini ster why was it not pursued any further? What is the rationale?

The Mi nis ter is indicating it will not be pursued any further. When he talks of the private sector being involved, we have many concessions and stuff like that within provincial parks. If he's referring to that, that's not what this was all about. This was working 3083

Monday, 18 August, 1986 on running the whole operation of a provincial park, and Moose Lake wasn 't the only one. There were about three or four, I believe, that were being considered. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty giving a detailed answer to the question raised by the Member for Emerson. The advice I have from staff is it was a policy decision of the Government of the Day to not pursue it any further, in that specific instance, at Moose Lake.

Again I want to refer to specific sites wherein we do have an arrangement with the private sector to manage the faciliti es, such as at Overflowing Riv er, the management of this site has been cont racted with a private individual. In terms of the specific project that the member refere nces, Moose Lake, I can only indicate that there was a pol icy decision at the time to not pursue that specific case further. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, it just indicates once again the incon sistency within the department.

Initially , they promoted the idea to the point where they were accept ing offers and proposals, these kind of things. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that possibly because the Manitoba Government Empl oyees ' Associat ion, the union got involved or concerned about some of the jobs that will probably be on the line for this, because it had gone to the extent where they had accepted proposals and all of a sudden they back off. Now they say, well, we're not discussing that any further. It once again shows the problems within the department as to the direction that they're going.

That was a specific direction that was indica ted by the then Min ister of Natural Resources. The Member for Lac du Bonn et was indicating that they were pursuing that. This is what has actually created a lot of problems in the minds of the people of Manitoba. Where is this department going, knowing full well, and I've indicated so many times, we've had four Minis ters in a little over a year and each one is pulling in a different direction. As a result of that, we've had chaos, to some degree, within the department. Consistent ly, the saga continues of all the little problems that have developed in there.

Once again, I would like to have the Minis ter indicate what is the reason. He says it was a policy decision. Why would they initiate it and then change their mind? What was the rationale behind it? There were a lot of people that went to a great extent and great problems submitting proposals. Obviously when you look at a place - he keeps referring to the one place, Moose Lake. I referred to more than that, that were put on the docket for consideration for privatization. It sho ws a continuing in con sistenc y within the department. I'm getting tired of this bull. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm amused, as we go through this exercise of the Estimates, as we go through each branch, the critic makes reference to what, in his view, is inconsis tency on the part of the department. - (Interjection) - Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Mem ber for Emerson is not talking agains t privatization, I would expect. We, from the department had indicated an interest in pursuing some other means of delivering services to the public of Manitoba and there certainly was, and there is an inter est in involving the private sector in the del ivery of those services.

There were four locations in which there was an interest in testing out that particular concept, Grand Vall ey, Lynch's Point, Norquay and Moose Lake. Grand Valley was accepted, so for the Member for Emerson to suggest that there's inconsis ten cy, the fact that a particular idea was being pursued, should not mean that then the government would not withhold the right, given certain conditions to proceed more cautiously. With respect to Norqu ay, for example, all of the bids that were subm itted - and I'm not sure what number the y were - but there were no acceptable bids.

In the case of Lynch's Point, there was only one bid; in the case of Moose Lake, I think that ther e were two bids, so certainly in pursuing this kind of a notion, we would want to proceed cautious ly. We've accepted the bid in the case of Gr and Vall ey. There were no acceptable bids in the case of Norquay and only one bid in the case of Lynch's Point. In the case of Moose Lake, there were two bids but it was decided that they should not proceed in that particular instance. So I want to reject , Mr. Chairman, the notion that there is an inconsis tency or a lack of direction in this respect.

If the member wants to ch aracterize this as caution, in proceed ing with a new approach, I would be quite prepared to accept that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, can the Minis ter then indic ate whether they' re still pursuing the privatization of provincial parks, in some cases? HON. L. HARAPIAK: I want to clarif y, when the Member for Emerson is talking about privatizing provincial parks, it is not as though the entire park would be turned over to the private sector; but in terms of management of certain facilities or delivery of certain programs in the parks, that is still available. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: What direction are you going? That's what I'm asking. HON. L. HARAPIAK: It's still an idea that we would want to pursue in terms of considering how we would most effectively, in the future, deliver services to the people of Manitoba. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter is now telling me that they are still pursuing the possibility of having the private sector ge tting in volved in management and providing services in provincial parks.

If that is what the Minister is saying, could the Min ister outline basically what the guidelines are in terms of qualification, because proposals were subm itted and he says they were not acceptable. In one case they were, and others, in one he says the proposal was not acceptable; the other two, he says, well, they received proposals but didn't pursue it any further. He indicated the policy was not to pursue that any further, but I want to know from this Min ister, what is the policy of this?

If he has to continue with the attempted privatization of these parks, then let's have the guidelines so people know where they're at, so they don't have to go to all kinds of expense and time to submit a proposal when there's no guid elines? 3084

Monday, 18 August, 1986 I mean, are we going to put Falcon Lake in the same position as that? Maybe somebody would want to make a proposal on that. Once · we know what the guidelin es and the direction is, if the government wants to go with this in this Department and this Min ister, then people can decide which way they're going to go. On one hand the Min ister says, well, no we're not doing it any more. And then he says, yes, we're doing it. Where are we going? HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, it is the view of the Member for Emerson that we are not pursuing the possibility of private sector involvement in the parks. We 've indicated very clearly for our part, that we are exploring this particular vehicle for delivering services. We have the private sector involved in a variety of arrangements, to provide the park services. There are other possibilities being explored. There is a proposal on my desk for consideration at this time with respect to the private sector involvement in the project at Winnipeg Beach, as an example.

So for the Mem ber for Emerson to say that there is no position on the part of the government to involve the private sector, I think ignor es what in fact exists, where we've indicated where there is an idea that we would invite in certain instances, the submi ssions from the private sector , and in the case of Winnip eg Beach, as an example, there is a proposal on my desk at this time, which I've not had a chance to review in detail. But the suggestion contained within the report is that this deliv ery vehicle be pursued further.

So I think there's a cl ear ind ication that the government is prepared in certain instanc es to involve the private sector in the del ivery of services within the park system. MA. A. DAIEDGEA: Mr. Chairman, my question to the Min ister is, is he and his department accept ing proposals? Are they inviting proposals from the private sector to get involved in services in Provincial Parks? It takes us half-an-hour to get a straight answer out of the guy. HON. L.

HAAAPIAK: I just want to indicate to the Member for Emerson, it's further indication of our preparedness to look at alternate ways of delivering services that we are in the process of preparing tenders for provision of services at Grand Beach, as well. MA. A. DAIEDGEA: Mr. Chairman, that's not an answer. What I'm asking the Min ister, if he and his department are inviting offers from the private sector to get involved in Provincial Parks to provide certain services? He says they're looking at Grand Beach. How about the others that they initiated? Like, what is the policy?

If they are inviting proposals from the private sector, then let's have the guidelines set out so that people know what they are up against. Indicate. Is the department open to accept offers on any provincial park for certain services or is it selectively done on a piecemeal basis? What is the policy on that? HON. L. HAAAPIAK: If what the Member for Emerson is suggesting, that we put our park system up for public auction, I would say . . . MA. A. DAIEDGEA: I asked what your policy is. HON. L. HAAAPIAK: ... we are opp osed to that.

What I am saying is that we are charged with the respo nsibility of the management of those resources and that we will explore different ways of delivering the services to the people of Manitoba; and one of those opportunit ies will be through private sector involvement. But if the Member for Emerson is suggesting that in order to explore those opportunities it has to be all or nothing at all, that we put the entire system up for bids, I would say to him, no, that is not the case; we will pursue it but on a cautious basis.

As time progresses and as we make an assessment of the effectiveness of that kind of del ivery system, then we would be in a position to make further decisions. MA. A. DAIEDGEA: Mr. Chairman, I am getting a little frustrated with the non-an swers from this Mini ster. I have asked him very specifically what is the polic y. He says we are exploring all kinds of avenues. He also indic ated before that this department is prepared to accept offers from the private sector . Now he is saying, well, we are exploring all avenues. I'm not getting any direct answer.

What I am asking: if some private individual wants to come forward with a proposal regarding providing services in a provincial park, can an individual come and make a proposal or is the policy not to have that happen? HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I think the Mem ber for Emerson is fully aware that when you are dealing with public resources, and if you are exploring ways of delivering services in an alternate way, that in most cases it would be necessary to tender these.

If somebody comes forward with a notion to us and indicates, I think that this is how a particular service would be better delivered, I think rather than accepting that, what it would be necessary to do is if we agreed that there would be some potential for an alternate del ivery system, using the private sector, it would only be fair that those be tendered. So we would call for tenders in those instances. MA. A. DAIEDGEA: Mr. Chairman, to the Minis ter then: What would be the criteria for something like this happe ning? For example, there were proposals accepted on four different provincial parks last year.

One was accepted, one was rejected and the other two he hasn't indicated what happened with them. He said it was a policy decision not to accept them. Can the Min ister just tell us straight where it's at? If they are looking for some kind of proposals to come forward, what is the criteria, or are we just playing by the seat of our pants? A MEMBER: He got stumped again, Albert? MA. A. DAIEDGEA: I'm getting no answers. HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, I want to indic ate again, as clearly as I can, to the Memb er for Emerson, that delivering services in the parks through the private sector is a developing kind of notion on our part. We 3085

Monday, 18 August, 1986 want to proceed cautiously, because I think if we proceeded too quickly and got people extensively involv ed in those services and then found that we had to retrench in that position, I think it would make it rather awkward for many of the people who had made a commi tment to that. So my position, and the support from within the department, is that we should proceed cautiously and as we come to under stand the benefits of delivering cert ain programs in certain areas through use of the public sector, that we would explore that further.

I just want to indicate again that we have 109 busi ness concessions in parks and approxima tely 80 wayside parks under service contracts at this time. So it's clearly not a case of not wanting any involvement from the private sector. There is a clear indication that we've invo lved the private sector and see a very useful role for the private sector in this respect. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, can the Min ister indicate if somebody in the private sector wants to get invo lved in providing services, what is the criteria?

How would he go about - if any individual has an interest in providing certain services in provincial parks, what is the criteria? How does he go about doing this? Is there a policy in place, is there some criteria there that an individual can check and find out whether he can qual ify for something like that? A MEMBER: A membership in the NDP party first. A MEMBER: That'll do it. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, bearing in mind some of the comments just made from the mem bers opposite, I would be delighted if they were suggesting by way of their comments that all the private sector people who are involv ed in the parks are supporters of this side of the House. I want to indicate clearly, in this respect, our approach is not unlike that of some private sector operations where somebody will come forward with a proposal and say I have an idea that I want to bring forward to you, and that idea will be judged on its own merits.

So if the member is saying he wants to know what the procedure is, somebody who has an idea for del ivery of services in the parks, as a private sector initiative, the y should take that idea forward to the Parks Branch and speak to people within that branch and the proposal will have to stand on its own merits. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister then indic ate what happened in the case last year when proposals were requested from the private sector with four different parks?

What happened in the case where if the policy decision was not to accept the proposal from Moose Lake or one of the other provincial parks, what happens? Do you throw it aside? Do you indicate what kind of criteria that is required in terms of allowing that individual to reapply? The Mini ster just indicated well, he thought that just a proposal was not acceptable, but they ask for propos als. And then they leave every thing hang. And then he indica tes to me that if the proposal is not accep table, then it should be tendered. Where are we at with this thing? We 've been around the whole darn circle now.

I'd like to know exactly. You know, is there a movement in this direction what the criteria is and what should happen? Come on, Leonard, let's have some action, quit waffling around the place. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I sense the Member for Emerson wants to dictate the answer that I will give. That is not going to happen. I will answer to the best of my ability and I would draw reference to many tenders that are put into the paper.

We could take any business paper and look at the tenders that are subm itted by the private sector or by the public sector and there is an indication that the lowest or any tender not necessarily accepted. So I think the fact that tenders are called should not mean that somebody is going to automatically go ahead with the particular projects. Circums tances will change, particularly in a new venture of this sort. Now, Grand Valle y, which was accepted, was not without its critics.

I think certainly when you are dealing with public resource and there is a public reaction to a particular approach, government should be sensitive to that and hear the concerns of the public involved. I can only speculate that perhaps, on the basis of the cont roversy that surrounded the awarding of the one contract for Grand Valle y, that there was an increased cautiousness on the part of the government with respect to their other proposal, Moose Lake. In the other two instances, one, there was not any tender and, in the other case, the one that was subm itted was no t acceptable.

I think it's as straight forward as that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the answers that the Mi nis ter is giving the Member for Emerson, let's be specific in, say, Spruce Woods Park. When that park was built, there was to be absolutely no commercial activity there, in fact, within miles of the park. It was to be strictly a public ly-owned, publicly -operated park.

Now, in the light of what the Mini ster is saying to the Member for Emerson, take as an example, if someone was to want to put up a concession of some kind in that park, are you saying that is the sort of thing you would allow, allow now? Is that a complete change in policy from what was there a few years ago? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to indicate that the Member for Gladstone is probably aware that, in the case of Spruce Woods, there is a trail ride service and the wagon rides; that it's provided by way of a private-sector arrangement. There is a contr act with that individual.

There was a concession at one time within the park and that was destroyed by fire, I'm told, and there are services provided in the surrounding communities. So, at this time, it appears as though that particular need for concessions in this case is being adequately provided for by the surrounding communi ties. But, if there was an indication that there was a public need within the park and that it could be sustained by way of the activity in the park, that it would sustain that kind of a service, it could be viable, I don't think there 3086

Monday, 18 August, 1986 would be any objection to looking at proposals in that regard. But, where that service is already being provided in the surrounding communities, that begs the question of why invite the proposals for it when that service is already being provided. MRS. C. OLESON: Mr. Chairman, wel l, I'm not promoting that a business be put there, but we're trying to get at the fact that whether or not it's possible, because, from the discussions that I've been hearing, I still don't know whether you could put one there or whether you couldn't.

I thought that there would be some definite policy on what went on in the parks. There used to be at one time and we knew from people who li ved in that area that there was to be no commercial activity within so many miles of the park. You couldn't even put up a sign along the road. In tact, they discou raged people from even putting up any busine ss closer than about three miles or more from the park. So I was curious to know exactly what the policy is.

The Member for Emerson had been asking questions and it occurred to me, if I asked this specific one, maybe the Minister could come up with a definite policy; but obviously he doesn't seem to be able to. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I would be anxious to know more about the policy or the guideline that the Member for Gladstone refers to with respect to activity, that there wasn 't to be activity within a certain distance of the park. I'm not aware of that and my staff does not seem to be aware of that eithe r. But I can only say, again, that we do, as I indica ted before the break, su rveys of park users.

If, on the basis of the su rveys that are conduc ted and other kinds of input from the public there is an indication that there is need for a service in the park that is not provided, we would entertain proposals for the deliv ery of that serv ice, provided there was some indic ation that it could be a viable service, could be economically viable and that that service wasn 't already being provided in other areas.

I should mention with respect to Spruce Woods, there was a bit of a cont roversy from somebody wanting to set up a service just outside Spruce Woods, but it was within the municip al jurisdiction, and he did not comply with the zoning authority. So, in that particular case, it was not a dis agreement with parks, it was simply with the surrounding municipal jurisdiction that he was not in compl iance with their zoning regulations.

There was that element, I believe it was in May of this year, where there were calls to me from the person who was proposing to deliver the service to intervene with the municipalit y, but I didn't feel that was my role at all. MRS. C. OLESON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know the ins and outs of exactly what went on in that case, but if it's the business I'm thinking of, it's there and it's going forward and I suspect thriving - whoever's jurisdiction it was anyway.

Another thing that occurs to me in connection with this is the recently signed agreement between the Spruce woods Park, between the Department of Natural Resources and the friends of Spruce Woods Park. Now, I wonder if the Minis ter could tell me what criteria he has, the department has, with regard to that sort of organization. Have they got set guideli nes of activities that they can undertake within the park? HON. L.

HARAPIAK: There is a specific agreement between the Friends of Sp ruce Woods and the depa rtmen t, in this case, and if the Me mb er for Gladstone would like - I don't have the agreement here - we can make a copy of that agreement available. MRS. C. OLESON: For other organizations, I think, if I unde rstand correctly, the Friends of Spruce Woods Park is the first one of that nature in the province. What criteria, what policy has the department laid down for what activities these groups indul ge in? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr.

Chairman, the agreement is such that rather than having, in this case, the Friends of Spruce Woods deliver a program that the department is already delivering, it is meant to enhance or expand the program. In this case, they do inter pretive work. They might develop public awareness programs. So it is meant to enhanc e and com plement what the department is doing. Frankly , we are very hopeful that this would be an example that other organizations would foll ow.

It's very much my belief that the department, in all of its efforts, requires cooperation from the public and, certain ly, where there's a willingn ess on the part of the public to share in the management of the resource or to increase public awareness of a particular resource base, we would want to work with the public in that regard. MRS. C. OLESON: Perhaps, if the Min ister forwards me the agreement, maybe I can see it there. I'm just wondering what limitations, if any, are placed on these organizations.

This is a very good organization and I agree that the public should have input into how the parks ar e used, but I just wonder what limitations the department has put on them, if any. Are they allowed to go into any business, for instance, in the park? What policy is there to guide them so they will know what they're doing? HON. L. HARAPIAK: I think it would be best described, Mr. Chairman, by indicating that they were involv ed in education, extension, and perhaps in special events programs.

Anything that they undertake is under supervision of the parks staff in that area, so it is not as though they could decide on their own that ther e was to be a particularly new venture they were going to undertake that might be in conflict with some of the other users of the park. It would have to be with the approval of the park's staff. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I would just like to offer maybe a suggestion. Instead of trying to fudge around issues and bafflegab things, if the Mi nister does not have a definite polic y, if he would ind icate that, that's accept able. If he do esn 't have answers, that's acceptable.

But ins tead of trying to talk around the whole circle and not giving answers and act like he has a dir ection that he's going, I find that very frustrating. Basical ly, that's what we've covered now for over half an hour on the privatization of parks. The Min ister got up and indicated, "We have no policy; 3087

Monday, 18 August, 1986 we're looking at trying to establish some thing." But then he tries to lead us around the mul berry bush and that's why it's taking such a long time. I'd like to now ask the Minister whether there's any program in place in terms of further development of park s, of lakes, or furt her cottage development possibly? Is there a program in place, like we have, for example, under the dr ai nage progr am? If he submitted his program, we could see what's on there. We might not like it, but that's where it's at; we can accept that.

Is there a program in place right now for further development of our lakes, for cottage development, for further park development? Or is there no plan in place? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I perhaps could just ask for some clarification from the Member for Emerson whether he is wanting some indication of the long-term land use allocations with respect to parks or whether they would be more questions on capital with respect to existing parks because I have information on each of those. MR. A. DRIEDGER: First of all, I'd appreciate maybe having both of them.

I'd like to know whether there's any capital exp enditur es anticipa ted in further development, whether it be the Moose Lake area, whether it be a new lake where we allow more access to more cottages, etc., and what is the pol icy. Is it the policy of this department to expand the availability of lots? We have so many lakes. We've discu ssed this many times. There's many people who would like access to these kinds of lots. If we ever allowed lots to be tendered on or opened for the public, there would be a lot of pressure on that. This is what I'm asking.

Is there a desire within the department to expand availability of development in terms of cottage lots and other development? HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Chairman, I will distribute the capital project with respect to parks but perhaps before I do that, I just want to indicate to the member that at this point in time we have an inventory of 440 lots available. There's 202 in parks and 238 on Crown lands.

In terms of future program development, there are sites slated for further deve lopment in the northwestern reg ion at Twin Lake s and Rocky Lake; in the nor theastern reg ion, Paint Lake; in the eastern regions, at Wanipigow, Lac du Bonnet and Pointe du Bois. I hope that is a clear indication to the mem ber of the direction with respect to lots. I would perhaps make the document with respect to capital available, and also a document entit led "A Heritage for Today and Tomorrow" which is a public document already - the member may have it.

I did advise future potential park sites for the various kinds of parks not necessarily just for cottaging experiences but for the various park experiences for the people of Manitoba. So I would make that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-69b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 69b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2357eb8c8df2541ac77e1d5e121cc045197151f2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).