Manitoba Hansard — 3 June 1998 (Sitting 58, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-58

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

· .. . ·· Fourth Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative� Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PE�OCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The llonourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker :··'�,�,�� .• .··"'' Vol. XLVIII No. S8- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 3, 1998

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER. Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DRIEDGER. Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN. Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE. Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER. Jack. Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE. Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON. Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON. Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary. Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescent wood Broadway Kirkfleld Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C.

P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C . P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C . P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

385 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 3, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Rail Line Abandonment Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of K. Edwards, M. Hill, J. Marchuk and others praying that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba request that the prov incial gov ernment go on record requesting CN and CPR to not proceed with any discontinuance of lines until the report has been tabled, that being the Estey Grain Transportation report.

READING AND RECE IVING PETITIONS The Brandon Area Foundation Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans). It complies with the rules and prac tices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: No. Dispense. The petition of the Brandon Area Foundation praying for the passing of

an act to amend the Brandon Area Foundation Incorporation Act. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. James McCrae (Minister char ��ed with the admini stration of The Mani toba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to table the 19 97 Annual Report for Manitoba Public Insurance, A Stronger Future . Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty two Grade 11 students from Sisler High under the direction of Mr. Chris Bandfield.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). We also have twenty-four Grades 4 and 5 students from Balm oral Hall School under the direction of Ms. Caroline Knowles and Ms. Christine Kowalec. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Also, we have twenty-four Grade 8 students from Munroe Junior High under the direction of Mrs. Laura Black. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. * (13 35) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Mani toba Public Insurance Corporation Deductibles-Car Theft Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in 19 96 the government changed the policy dealing with MPI deductibles to extend those deductibles for victims of car thefts here in Manitoba. In debate last year we raised our obje ctions to this change which we thought was making the victims pay twice.

This last period of time I have met with an individual who has been labelled by the media as a Good Samaritan who stopped his vehicle on Highway 6 in March of this year to help three young people who looked like they were in trou ble. He was assaulted by these three young people. His vehicle was stolen, and to add insult to inju ry, the individual was told by MPI that the deductible of $500 will apply.

3852 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 I would like to ask the government today, with the MPI announcement, will they be reversing this policy on deductibles for victims of car thefts. Hon. James McCrae (Minister cha rged with the admini stration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, Manitoba Public Insurance has partnered with police ag encies to assist in making our streets and highways safer places for Manitoba motorists. We have partnered also to ensure that the burgeoning car theft industry could be brought to a halt.

The growth in that industry has stopped, and now we are working towards reducing the incidence of car thefts. With respect to the deductible about which the honourable Leader of the Opposition asks, those Manitobans car rying extended coverage in this particular coverage year do not pay the deductible. Those who maintain only the basic cover age do pay the deductible in recognition of the principle that insurance is a partnership between the ra tepayer and the insurance company. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this gove rnment changed the policy in 1996.

The deductible was not applied to victims of car thefts here in Manitoba. This individual, whom I have mentioned, a constituent, who has been named by one media outlet as a Good Samaritan, does not want his name used, but he feels that he has been victimized three times: once, when his vehicle was stolen; twice, when his throat was slashed by the alleged assaulters; and a third time now by our own Manitoba Crown corpora tion. I asked the government last year. They did not call this a rate increase when the deductibility was changed, a fact pointed out by the automobile association.

Why will it not put all its resources into stopping car thefts instead of putting some of the fees and expenses back on victims? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, there are a number of obje ctives that the Manitoba Public Insurance wishes to achieve with its policies.

If the honourable member needs to be reminded, I can tell him that, as of last year, Manitobans paid the second-lowes t premiums across the country for auto insurance on an overall basis and that, with the bringing in of a $700 deductible in the prov ince of Saskatchewan, we can now say that overall Manitobans pay the lowest rate of insurance in Canada, and that we have the most comprehensive set of benefits almost anywhere in North America. That being said, I am quite sympathetic with the matter the honourable member raises.

The fact situation is unique, and I am sure no one setting policy ever had intended that someone in a Good Samaritan situation like the one the honourable member refers to would have thought of that particular type of incident when setting policies. I do not know what I can do in this case, but I certainly would be pleased to investigate the matter further. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, we are pleased that the publicly administered, publicly run auto insurance operations in Canada, in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba, do produce the lowest rates in North America , and again speaks well to the whole issue of public ownership of that Crown entity. Madam Speaker, when the change was made by the previous government, the Public Insurance Corpora tion execu tives said it is unfortunate that innocent victims will have to spend more money. It is unfortunate that we have gone from 2,400 car thefts in Manitoba in 1992 to some 9,800 car thefts in '96.

I know that Manitoba has the highest per capita car thefts in Canada. I know that Winnipeg is lower than Vancouver in terms of national comparisons, but we believe it sends the wrong message to victims. Surely public Crown corpora tions can have a consistent message for victims of crime that we purport to have in other areas of government. Surely we should not make the victims of car thefts, if they have acted resp onsibly, subject to deductibles. Will the government, agai n, look at these policies that unfairly victimize victims twice in Manitoba? *

(1340) Mr. McCrae: Well, as I said, Madam Speaker, thanks to the efforts of Winnipeg Police and funded by Manitoba Public Insurance as a Crown-owned insurance company, we have seen car-theft activities levelling off in Manitoba, unlike in B.C. and Saskatchewan where we, unlike what the honourable member said, see actually worse rates than we do in

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3853 Manitoba. I am not saying that to say that the rates of car thefts in Manitoba are acceptable, because they are not, and that is why efforts by the Justice department, by police authorities and MPI are dir ected towards this particular problem. But, you know, the honourable member says that we enjoy low rates and comprehensive benefits because of public ownership. Maybe it has a little something to do with good stewardship. If we go back to the days of the Doer-Pawley administra tion, we know very well what happened with rates at Autopac.

It was this govern ment that made Autopac accountable to the Public Utilities Board, not honourable members opposite, and nothing to do with public ownership. Children's Services Provincial Compa risons Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, yesterday in Question Period the Minist,;:r of Family Services said that she wished that she had a model of child welfare that Manitoba could follow. Perhaps the min ister would like to look at the Province of Saskatchewan where they have half tht! number of children in care as Manitoba in spite of a similar population base. They have no childn!n in hotels.

They have had no cuts to foster care rates, and they have had no cuts to welfare. I would lilk:e to ask the Minister of Family Services if she would be willing to study the Saskatchewan model and if she <:an figure out why they are so much more successful in keeping children out of care than Manitoba. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question. I do want to indicate that, just as little as half an hour ago or so, I was speaking to a minister in Saskatchewan and we were talking about the issues around child welfare.

He was certai nly expressing the same kinds of concerns and issues in Saskatchewan as we experience in Manitoba. I do want to indicate that, contrary to what my honourable friend might put on the record, our foster rates are higher in Manitoba than they are in Saskatchewan; they are higher in Manitoba than they are in Alberta, and that is looking at just the basic rate.

I want to indicate that children are assessed on an individual basis when they need placement in care through Winnipeg Child and Family Services or any other agency, and in addition to the basic foster rate, which is hig her than Saskatchewan's and higher than Alberta' s, children get additional supports that they need to continue to try to find a better way of life. Foster Care Temporary Placements Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Will the Minister of Family Services, who knows that we have dozens of children in hotels and dozens of children, averaging 60 to 65 a night, in four-bed units, devise a strategy, any strate gy, to get children out of temporary placements and into foster homes and into permanent homes? What is this min ister going to do to reduce the unacceptably high number of children in temporary placements? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): That is exactly the issue that is being addressed by both my department and the Winnipeg age ncy.

As a result of the high numbers of children in hotel placements last year, we put in place a process where, on a day-by-day basis, both my department and Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency review the issues surroun ding every child in hotels, Madam Speaker, and we have been very succes sf ul in moving people or ·children out of those circu mstances. Although we have not been able to clear the issue up completely, we have had a signifi cant impact. I do know there are still some issues around the long term placements in hotels, but those are not children who can go into foster care at the basic ra te.

Those are children with exceptional needs, and the recruitment of foster parents for those children is an ongoing issue and one that we are attempting to address. Adoption Maintenance Subsidy Government Support Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services respond to one of the concerns raised in the strategic planning workshop document released this week and consider, in spite of the fact that this document says that Manitoba has ref used to proclaim an adoption maintenance subsidy, an adoption maintenance subsidy like other provinces have, so that we can get children out of temporary

3854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 placements and into a sense of pennanency in family homes? Will this minister act on this recommendation? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I want to correct for the record that this was not a document that was produced at the strategic planning session. This was a document that was put together by the agency in preparation for strategic planning on how to fix the issues and solve the problems. I make no apologies for the Winnipeg agency going through that process, and I am sure that as a result of that, we will see significant changes in the way we deliver child welfare in the city of Winnipeg. *

(1345) Diagnostic Tests Waiting Lists-Reduction Strategy Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, unfortunately, Manitobans are faced with a spectacle of United States clinics advertising on television in Winnipeg telling Winnipeggers and other Manitobans to go down to receive MRI, CAT scans and ultrasound tests in the United States because of unacceptable waiting lists. Unfortunately, the minister's own Winnipeg Regional Health Authority says, and I quote, in Manitoba, waiting lists for ultrasound, CT and MRI are significantly longer than those in other Canadian cities.

We have been saying this year after year after year, minister after minister. My question to the Minister of Health is: will you put in place a system to deal with the unacceptable waiting lists in the interim period until your grand scheme unfolds, the grand scheme that has been promised, version 3 or 4, now for some time? Wiii you put in place a temporary stop-gap measure to deal with people, so they do not have to go to Grafton, North Dakota, as the TV ads have said? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, not only is the answer to that question yes, but it is also that we have done that this winter. That was part of the initial tranche of dollars that was provided to Dr. Blake McClarty. We have our waiting lists going down in all of those particular areas of CT scans, ultrasounds. We have increased the hours of operation on various diagnostic equipment in our community hospitals, and week by week, month by month, we are seeing improvements in those lists.

As the Winnipeg Hospital Authority takes over its role in diagnostics-and part of the plan that was unveiled the last couple of weeks calls for a 15 percent increase, I believe, in the number of procedures to deal with backlogs, and that is moving through the approval stage. So the temporary plans have been put in place are underway, and the long-tenn solution is working its way through to also be put in place. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister's ad hoc plans which are not taking effect, endeavour today and promise this House that he will write to all of the doctors in Manitoba, outline specifically what his plan is so that those doctors-and I have talked to them-who are giving their patients the number for the Grafton clinic will not have to do so and will know that they will be able to get their services here in Manitoba expeditiously without having to send patients to Grafton, North Dakota? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, first of all, the member says ad hoc plans. The plans were developed by Dr.

Blake McClarty who has a responsibility in that area for diagnostics. He developed a plan last winter at our request. We put the funding in place. Staff have been hired. Where staff have not been, they are because they are completing training programs. I know one of the issues that arose in developing this plan was that a class of technicians, I believe, graduates in August, and we are awaiting that to add to our capacity to deliver more services. The member referenced MRis. I am pleased to indicate that this year, in fact within a few weeks, we hope to be opening the new MRI at the Health Sciences Centre.

We have two new MRis coming in at St. Boniface, one a replacement, one a new one. So all of the work, all of the planning is there, and it is coming to fulfilment. Madam Speaker, if anyone is advising patients that they have to go to Grafton, I would suggest that is not representative of the Manitoba reality as the plan unfolds and develops. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister not agree that the minister's pronoun cements, like those on Betaseron and getting covered for Betaseron and like those on waiting lists that we have heard month after

June 3, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3855 month and year after year, the time between the minister's pronouncement and the actual implementation of the plan is usually so lengthy that people suffer and have to wait on waiting lists? We know the MRis are coming on maybe later on in the year. I am asking him: what commitment will the minister make in writing to doctors in Manitoba and to patients in writing to indicate specifically when those commitments will come on stream, and what will be done in the interim? If you are willing to do ads and hire public relations people, why will you not put in writing your commitments to reduce those waiting- *

(1350) Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member references Betaseron. Our commitment was to fund the MS Clini_c to run the program. We cannot help it that the MS Clinic, which had two physicians when tht!y undertook the project, now has one, and that has caused a delay. [interjection] Well, the member says I cannot help it. I cannot produce a neurologist with that expertise overnight. I do not have one in a hat; I do not have one in a closet; I do not have one I can pull out to put in place. When we negotiated the arrangements with the MS Clinic, they had two physicians.

They now have one. That one physician is going to be away for a period of time to attend a conference. That is some thing that none of us in this Chamber can prevent, and we have provided the authority to do whatever is possible to solve that particular problem. Madam Speaker, the information is there. It is available to physicians. The regula.r routes of conveying information on scheduling are there. If any physician is telling their patients to book, given what is happening, I would just hope that it is not happening as part of other negotiations with respect to doctors' remuneration.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Elmwood, with the House's indulgence, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my right where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Dave Blake, the former member for Minnedosa. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Desktop Management Services Bidding Process-Vendor Presence Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Government Services.

A $150-million computer contract between the govern ment and SHL is the government's biggest megaproject in its existence. It was easy to see who would win the computer contract when something called vendor presence accounted for 25 percent of the total points, and price only counted for 15 percent of the points. I would like to ask the minister: would he define "vendor presence" and explain to the bidders, who were not given a definition, why it counted for more points than price? Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I think the honourable member has to-I share some information with him to try to get the area that he is questioning clarified for him. The Manitoba government entered into a 66- month contract with Systemhouse. The total cost of that contract was approximately $143 million over the length of the contract. The incremental costs over that same period of time in the entire contract are in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $35 million.

So the member is asking in terms of the contract evaluation criteria, and I must say that in terms of most, if not all, contracts that the provincial government has with potential suppliers of services and/or product, there is a contract evaluation criteria that is put into place with respect to each time a request for proposal is put out. This is not unlike any other government across this country or any other jurisdiction, Madam Speaker. Bidding Process-Hardware Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): The minister again refuses to answer the question. I would like to ask the minister a supplementary.

Can he confirm that several companies, including at least one Manitoba company,

3856 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 quoted lower prices than IBM for the actual hardware provided? Can he confinn that? Point of Order Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, honourable members sometimes do this. They do not do their homework, and they come to the Legislature and ask ministers to confinn certain infonnation. Madam Speaker: On a point of order? Mr. McCrae: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the member's duty and responsibility to bring forward infonnation and put it before the House and then ask questions about whatever he wants to as a result.

But to ask ministers to confinn, I believe, is out of order. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, on the same point of order. *

(1355) Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think this question is entirely in order and the government House leader is wrong. We are asking questions about the expenditure of $150 million. Surely that is in order. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, on the same point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I think the govern ment House leader is somewhat confused. You cannot pose possibly a hypothetical question.

That might be in order to stand up on a point of order and suggest that it is out of order, but to pose a question of the govern ment of the nature that has been posed, there is definitely nothing wrong, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, because what you will find is that 50 percent of the questions that are asked are in fact of the very same, typical nature. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed I will take the matter under advisement so I can research Hansard to check the exact wording of the question by the honourable member for Elmwood. *** Mr.

Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is: would the minister release the point system and totals and confinn that several companies, including at least one Manitoba company, quoted lower prices than IBM for the actual hardware provided? Mr. Pitura: Madam Speaker, I have shared with the member across the way the contract evaluation criteria that were used in the selection process. I have taken the liberty, as well, of taking the honourable member with me over to the operation centre to show him how the system of a managed system works.

I am sure that the honourable member is quite aware of the reasons behind the approach taken by the provincial govern ment with regard to having a managed environment, desktop environment, so that we can face the issues of data transmission of facing the challenge of the year 2000. So I am sure that the honourable member is well aware of all these things that are happening. But to help the member out even a bit more, the per seat cost for the managed environment, of the $141 million, is about $1,760 per seat per year. For the standard office suite, it is $97 per seat per year.

For the data communications charge, it is around $3 72 per seat per year. For e-mail services, it is $152 per seat per year. So I think the honourable member now has all the costs that he needs to know. Bidding Process-Evaluation Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, once again the minister refuses to answer direct questions. Madam Speaker: Question. Mr. Maloway: My final supplementary to this minister is: would he give us the names and qualifications of the four individuals who reviewed and evaluated these proposals? Hon.

Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, again, I think I shared with

June 3, 1998 LEGISLA l'IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3857 the honourable member across the way what the total cost of the 66-month contract is. That is what it will cost taxpayers in this province, and because of the ongoing cost that we have on an annual basis, for each government department had nothing happened, there fore we can assign an incremental cost. That incremental cost is estimated to be $25 million to $30 million over the 66-month contract. So there is all the entire costs that are there for this entire contract, that is, with Systemhouse. * (1400 ) Cha rtier Report Recommenda tions-Implementation Mr.

Neil Gaudr y (St. Boniface): Ma question est pour le ministre responsable des service.s en fran((ais. J'aimerais tout d'abord feliciter le Commissaire !'honorable juge Richard Chartier pour un rapport dont les recommandations semblent, de prime abord, precises, et avant toute chose, de bon sens. De plus, il apparalt clairement que le processus de consultation utilise par le juge Chartier etait transparent et ouvert, allant meme jusqu'a rencontrer le cabinet du gouvernement.

Madame la presidente, rna question au ministre est la suivante: dans !'esprit d'ouverture degage par le rapport Chartier, et considerant que le cabinet du gouvernement en connalt deja tres bien !'orientation de:s recomman dations, quelle echeance et quelle date le ministre a-t-il fixees pour la mise en oeuvre de ces recommandations? [Translation] My question is for the Minister responsible for French Language Services. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the commissioner, Honourable Judge Richard Chartier, for a report whose recommendations seem, at first glance, precise and, above all, common sense.

Further, it clearly shows that tht! consultation process used by Judge Chartier was trcmsparent and open, even going so far as to meet with the government cabinet. Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is the following: in the spirit of openness that ·emerges from the Chartier report, and given that the cabinet is already very familiar with the orientation of the recommen dations, what time lines and what date has the minister set for the implementation of these recommendations? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for French Language Services): I thank my colleague from St.

Boniface for the very important question. It is our intention, as we indicated in our press release yesterday, that a committee of deputies in which the Clerk of the Executive Council is involved has been struck and will be reviewing the details of the particular recommendations to develop the implementation plan, including time lines. There are also other players involved with this recommendation, that being the board of directors of St. Boniface Hospital, which has a very significant role to play, along with the Winnipeg Hospital Authority, so they, of course, will have to be consulted as well.

Our intention is that we can begin implementation in the fall. That should also be accompanied with a set of time lines for the completion of that process. Commi ttee Membership Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Au meme ministre, Madame la presidente: qui sont les membres du comite appointe par le ministre pour faire le suivi du rapport Chartier? Est-ce qu'ils sont des francophones? [Translation] To the same minister, Madam Speaker: who are the members of the committee appointed by the minister to do the follow up on the Chartier report? Are they Francophones? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for French Language Services): No, the committee is composed of deputy ministers led by, I believe, the Clerk of the Executive Council, who has had a significant role in the development and implementation in the policy over the years. The intention is to have those individuals who have to deliver the new services or bring about implementation of the proposals to be able to figure out what has to be done, what time line it can be done in, and are there any problems or difficulties that have to be overcome to achieve implementation of those recommendations.

So it is important those people within government who have

3858 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 the responsibility to administer those program areas and services are at the table developing the implementation plan. Communi ty Service Centres Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Ma question supplementaire: le ministre accepte-t-il Ia recomman dation No 3 qui dit, et je cite: que des centres de services communautaires soient etablis dans les regions designees bilingues.

Et quand et ou verrons-nous l'ouverture du premier centre? [Translation] My supplementary question: does the minister accept recommendation No. 3 which reads, and I quote, that community service centres be set up in the designated bilingual areas, and when and where will we see the first centre opened? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for French Language Services): Madam Speaker, with respect to community service centres, if memory serves me correctly, I know many of my colleagues over the last while have been exploring that for general government services to have one-stop shopping.

So the common-sense part of this proposal fits into some of the other plans we have been working on as government over the years. The concept, of course, is to make sure there is a centre where a person could at least access generalists who can get the information they need. In the current policy, there are many designated bilingual positions that are located in offices that are outside of Francophone communities and outside of the traffic pattern for those communities.

The detail of how we put that together, which would also include, I think, consideration for the union representing our employees and other issues, has to be developed, and that is the area, I think, which will require the most work in developing the implementation plan. But I can assure the member, once that work is completed, we will want to announce that information and time frame. Agriculture Indu stry Safety Net Programs Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the recent cold weather, the frost and the threats of further frost show the vulnerable position Manitoba farmers are in, much more vulnerable than central Canada. It also shows clearly that farmers need stable funding safety net programs for income stabilization and risk management, as well as disaster relief.

Given that the memorandum of understanding on farm safety nets is coming to an end and a new one must be negotiated, can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House how he is going to ensure that Manitoba farmers get a fair share of the money to ensure the risks that Manitoba farmers are facing are addressed equitably to other producers? Hon. Ha rry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, first let me thank the honourable member for a timely question.

It is indeed trying times for all too many of our farmers, who were looking forward to an early positive start to our year with the weather that we enjoyed, now are finding themselves fighting frost in some instances, too much rain in a few other instances, and drought, all at the same time. As she says, it points out the risks of prairie agriculture.

I can report to her that not only my officials but the coalition of people of different farm organizations have been working diligently for the last several months, have been in contact and are working, have had several meetings in Ottawa in preparation for the ministers of Agriculture conference to be held on the 1st of July in Niagara, Ontario, this year where the safety net package will be the No. 1 item on our list for deliberation. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he feels the position taken by Ontario farmers that allocation for safety net money should be allocated on the value of the product rather than on risk is an acceptable positi on, or is he prepared to ensure that the safety net programs that are brought in will address the risks that are so important to Manitoba farmers. Mr. Enos: Madam Speaker, very directly to her question: no, I do not believe that that is in the interests of Manitoba farmers or prairie farmers.

The prairie region has, as we are experiencing right now, very specific risks, higher risks, I might add, than those faced by the farmers in Ontario or British Columbia. Also, on the issue where we have a greater percentage of horticultural crops, higher-value crops, if you place

June 3, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3859 the insurance envelope all on value, we tend. to lose out, particularly if the federal government has a cap on their overall contribution to the safety net program. So we are working to maintain what we have, hopefully some improvements in the package as have been suggested by different groups. I might add, Madam Speaker, that we are fortunate in Manitoba that over 80 percent of our agricultural land is covered by insurance, the highest subscription of any province of any jurisdiction in Canada. Ms.

Wowchuk: The minister has indicated that his staff and he have been working on negotiations. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to push for additional funding, for money, so we could have some of the disaster relief programs that other farm groups have asked for, and whether he will ensure that the federal government does not further renege on their responsibility to agriculture, as we have �.een them do in the last budgets that they have presentf:d. Mr. Enos: Well, Madam Speaker, it is not difficult to agree with the honourable member for Swan River.

First of all, I want to acknowledge, artd I want to remind honourable members opposite, that I and the farmers of Manitoba appreciate very much that this government, at the conclusion of the GRIP program, directed very significant portions of that premium that went towards that program into what we call the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program. I attribute part of the reason why we have such a high subscription rate to the fact that that has made our basic crop insurance program relatively fairly attractive to most farmers. So it is my hope to make that possible..

The federal government also provided us with some transition monies. It is very important that we retain those transition dollars so that we can maintain the current level of the program, at best, in its wrrent form, hopefully with some improvements to take in some additional crops, particularly in the hortkultural area. Red River/Lake Winnipe�: Coast Guard Services Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. As the minister knows, there are just three people working at the Coast Guard base in Selkirk.

The federal government has recently spent over $5 million to renovate this base, and currently it has been leased out to a private boat manufacturer. The 12 staff of the Coast Guard boat, the Numao, have been laid off. Currently, to provide Coast Guard services on Lake Winnipeg and on the Red River, there are just two zodiac boats and another small boat. That is all that remains to provide this service. Has this government conducted any studies of its own to determine what this would mean for commercial fishing, for sport fishing and for casual boaters on the Red River and Lake Winnipeg? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, the member raises an issue that is unfolding-again, federal decisions that may impact us in Manitoba. As the Department of Highways and Transportation, I will commit to the member that we will review the circumstances and what potential outcomes might happen that we would want to take action on. * (141 0) Mr. Dewar: Is the minister confident that there is adequate staff to operate the pollution containment equipment in case of a serious pollution spill, environ mental spill on either the Red River or Lake Winnipeg? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, my first answer fits again. We will review the circumstances and determine if there are outcomes that the member is mentioning that need to be addressed. We will review. Red River/Lake Winnipeg Dredging Services Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): My questions are also for the Minister of Highways and Transportation, further to my colleague's questions, the member for Selkirk, and he correctly pointed out that there have been job cuts at Selkirk.

I would like to ask the minister what the status of negotiations is with respect to dredging, and that dredging continues at the mouth of the Red River and also the major docks along Lake Winnipeg.

3860 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I do not have that information with me today. I will find out and report back to the member. Mr. Robinson: I thank the minister for that response. Another part of this is that the communities of Berens River, Pine Dock, Bloodvein, Poplar River, amongst others, depend on the services of a riverboat for virtually all groceries, goods and supplies. I would like to ask this government whether or not it acknowledges that dredging is very crucial to this region. Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, for supplying those communities with goods off the waterway is important. We recognize that very clearly. Part of our review that I have committed to, we will analyze the member's question and determine where and when we need to lobby for dredging services. Linnet Graphics Contract Expiration Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, could the Minister oflndustry, Trade and Tourism tell the House when the monopoly enjoyed by Linnet Graphics expired and when the agreement for selling that company was entered into and signed? Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, Madam Speaker, I do not agree that Linnet Graphics had any monopoly on anything. They were a company that was started in the province of Manitoba. With new technology, they are now creating some 60 jobs in the province of Manitoba. I could deal with the other- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, the date I will get for him for Estimates, which we will be entering into very shortly. The member keeps referring to some 300-and-some jobs.

If the project had gone to the third phase which was planned, then we would have accomplished the amount of jobs that were in place. There were two phases that were completed, of which has accomplished- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Contract-Manitoba Hydro Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, if the agreement to give Linnet its, essentially, lock on all provincially directed services in fact ended some time during 1997 as is claimed, or at the end of 1996, can the Minister oflndustry, Trade and Tourism explain to the House why Manitoba Hydro entered into an untendered, long-term agreement with Linnet last summer? Where is the commitment to openness, to tendering, to an even playing field? Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Well, first of all, Madam Speaker, if Linnet Graphics were not operating in Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro would not have been able to get the services from a company right here in our province. So I want that to be made clear. Secondly, Manitoba Hydro run their own operation. If they wanted to go to Linnet Graphics and make a deal with Linnet to do work for them, that is their business. We are not intrusionary like the New Democratic Party across the way and want to mess around in everything that goes on in this province.

An Honourable Member: And mess up everything. Mr. Downey: Absolutely. Crown Corporations Tendering Process Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, is the Minister of lndustry, Trade and Tourism then telling Manitobans that there is no open tendering program at any Manitoba Crown corporations, that the government of Manitoba does not require Crowns to live by the same rules that the government lives by? Is the Industry minister telling us that Linnet does have a continuing monopoly with Crowns but just not- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

June 3, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3861 Hon. James Downey (Minister of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism): The answer, Madam Sp·eaker, is no. But what there is in the province of Manitoba is a good government that does not fritter away money like the NDP, where we are still paying the debts for one Mr. John Bucklaschuk for $2 million in Autopac. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS HOPE Project Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, the crop is good, a bit of frost.

I rise today to congratulate some of the farmers in the Arnaud and Lowe Farm areas, residents who are growing wheat this year for the F oodgrains project. HOPE, or Helping Other People Eat, is a project of the Arnaud and District Community Growing Project. This worthy project raises grain- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Penner: Thank you. Again, HOPE, or Helping Other People Eat, is a project of the Arnaud and District Community Growing Project.

This worthy project raises grain for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank and is seen as an alternative to straight grain donations from farmers. A similar growing project is also underway in the Lowe Farm area. Projects such as HOPE enable a greater number of community members to participate and take

part in these important growing projects. By banding together as a group, companies often become involved, as well as individuals, in donating money towards buying fertilizer and inputs into growing this grain. The Arnaud and District Growing Project b•egan in 1997 with 160 acres of land seeded to flax. This year the project has expanded to 280 acres, and they are going to be growing wheat.

According to Harold Janzen of the Canadian Food grains Bank, more than half the cost of growing each of these acres of wheat will be covered by non participating farmers and companies that otherwise would not be able to participate in this project. The remaining costs are going to be made up of individual cash donations. Once again, I would like to congratulate those individuals who are participating throughout Manitoba in ensuring that there is going to be a greater degree of donations made to the Foodgrains Banks across this province.

People such as the Janzens and others in the Lowe Farm area are going to ensure that there are going to be 2,500 people who are going to have food on their tables this year compared to what they would have had without a project such as this. Misericordia General Hospital Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I have expressed many, many times in this House my concerns about the closure of the Misericordia.

I have spoken frequently about the absence of community consultation, the unconscionable treatment of sisters, staff and patients in the decade of uncertainty to which the hospital has been subjected. Today I want to add the comments of constituents who have written to me this week. One constituent says: If the government intended to close this as a hospital, why did they set up comprehensive breast care programs? Why did they designate it as an ophthalmology centre? Why are they closing this hospital when its cost per patient is lower than the cost per patient at each of the two major teaching hospitals?

How many hospital beds are they taking out of the system that are currently used as hospital beds? Where will they replace them? The government caroms from one health care and education issue to the next, either changing policy on the fly and according to the whims of the ministers or stonewalling against public outcries and opposition attempts to address the issues, or both. Please stop, the constituent adds, the disastrous plan to close the Misericordia General Hospital. *

(1420) Another senior citizen writes: I am amazed at the thoughtless treatment of the Winnipeg Hospital

3862 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1998 Authority to convert to a long-tenn care facility the Misericordia General Hospital. In the last year I was taken by ambulance to this hospital for emergency treatment. There I was treated with care by the hospital staff, kept in for improvement. Please do not make the mistake of closing this hospital. It is too important. I join with the rest of the neighbourhood to give my support to the wonderful doctors and staff. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Government Action Mr.

Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I want to remind all Manitobans that our government is committed to ensuring Manitoba remains the best place in Canada to live, work, invest and raise a family, and through consultation and partnership with Manitobans, we continue to work towards this goal. Therefore, it was especially gratifying to see the results of a recent Angus Reid poll indicating that seven out of I 0 Manitobans give their communities high ratings. In fact, almost three-quarters scored their communities as either a four or a five out of five.

Our government, through the balanced budget, taxpayer protection, and debt retirement legislation, has ensured that the priorities of Manitobans, job creation, health care, education, family services and community safety, continue to be provided with the necessary resources both now and in the future. Unemployment in our province remains among the lowest level since the early 1980s. Our long-tenn debt rating has been revised from stable to positive, and our economy continues to improve in diversity and with strong export focus.

As well, Manitoba continues to attract world class events, including the 1998 Grey Cup, the 1999 World Junior Hockey Championships and the 1999 Pan American Games. These events allow Manitobans an opportunity to showcase our great province to the tens of thousands of guests anticipated. As we move forward into the next century, our government will continue on the path we have embarked on to ensure the growth and achievements continue. We will continue to consult with Manitobans and strengthen the partnerships that have made Manitoba the great province that it is today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Misericordia General Hospital Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): During the past weeks, I too have joined with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) asking questions about Misericordia Hospital. Today I want to share with the Legislature a letter from a woman in the community who was particularly concerned about the closure of the breast care clinic. I am writing with respect to the fate of one of the very few multifaceted breast care programs in Canada, the program at the Miserico rdia General Hospital.

My main concern is saving the integrity of this program rather than saving the location of the program per se. This program provides comprehensive and integrated care to hundreds of women with both benign and malignant breast diseases. There were over 400 visits made to the clinic last year alone. For women with breast cancer, this program has co-ordinated all facets of their care from their first visit to their initial diagnosis and treatment as well as ongoing care as it is necessary.

My question to the provincial government and the Winnipeg Hospital Authority is why would you dismantle a program with demonstrated excellence? Why would you jeopardize the physical and emotional health of the women who currently use the program and those who will need the program in the future? Surely there must be a way that this valuable asset to the health care system can be either moved in its entirety to another facility or that modifications can be made so that the program can remain at the Misericordia.

This program is recognized nationally as an innovative and comprehensive approach to breast cancer care. Let us not lose it in the name of health care refonn. The cost would be too great. Madam Speaker, if I might continue, let me just say in closing that this is one of many letters that I have received in my constituency on the breast care clinic, and I would like to add my voice once again to that of women in the community who would like to see this breast care clinic remain in Misericordia Hospital open and running. Thank you. Red River/Lake Winnipeg Mr.

Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Highways and Transportation's (Mr.

June 3, 1998 LEG ISLA TJ[VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3863 Findlay) answers to my and my colh!ague from Rupertsland's questions regarding the future of the Coast Guard and the future of dredging services in the Selkirk and Lake Winnipeg area were less than reassuring. To the many Manitobans who use the lake, we raise the issue of concern about the safety of boaters on the lake. We also raise the issue of the concerns regarding pollution containment in the ev�:nt of a spill. His answers were very vague and, again, less than reassuring. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rupertsland raised the issue of dredging.

This is also a big concern. There are many communities along the eastern shore of the southern basin of Lake Winnipeg who rely upon water transportation for their supplies in the summer as they have no road access. Also, if the Red River at the mouth of the Red is no t dredged, this could inhibit all types of vessels from entering the lake. As well, in terms of the spring breakup, there are also concerns that if in fact the river is not dredged out, this could inhibit ice from flowing from the mouth of the Red into the lake during the spring breakup.

It could, as well, cause problems in terms of ice jams on that lake. Ice jams on the river and a potential for flooding has happened in 1996, so we urge the government to take some action to ensure that the Red River and Lake Winnipeg are safe for boaters this season and for future seasons. Thank you. Comm ittee Chang es Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett); Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for Broadway (Mr.

Santos) for Thursday, June 4, 1998, for 10 a.m. Motion agreed to. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: tho� member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns); the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) for the member fo r Brandon West (Mr. McCrae). Motion agreed to. *

(1430) ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition House leader and I have been having our discussions with the view to having two private members' hours tomorrow morning . I would be asking today that we waive private members' hour for today. Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour today? [agreed] Thursday morning's proceedings will involve two separate one-hour private members' hours. Agreed. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I would not want there to be any misunderstanding about that.

That was indeed what had been worked out between the two House leaders. Madam Speaker, I wish to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the sequence for consideration of Estimates as outlined in Sessional Paper 142 tabled on March 24, 1998, and subsequently amended, to consider in Room 255 the Estimates of the Sport Directorate. These changes are to apply until further notice. Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson}-no? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker: Yes. Mr.

McCrae: I beg your pardon. I know that everyone understands this, but we need to have it on the

38 64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 record that this would happen on the completion of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to alter the sequence of Estimates for Room 255, to have the Estimates of the Spor t Directorate take place on completion of the Estimates of the Department ofln dustry, Trade and Tourism, these changes to apply until further notice? [agreed] Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Min ister of Health (Mr.

Prazn ik), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Ma jesty. * (14 40) Motion agreed to. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) JUSTICE Mr. Cha irperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section ofthe Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the consid era tion of the Estimates of the Department of Justice. When the committee last sat, unanimous consent had been granted to have all questions and answers considered under line 4. l.(b)( I) . Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I appreciate the patience from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). I thought I was going to be done, but I have been provided the opportunity to do a little bit of a follow-up in the sense that, Mr. Chairperson, one of the things that I was able to do was to get some actual numbers since last we met.

I made reference to one of the things that I do within the riding is get some sort of feedback from people, constituents as to what they really believe. To pick up on when the minis ter made reference to the meeting that he had in Ottawa where you get civil servants-and I think that civil servants do a wonderful job. There is no doubt about that, but I was intrigued when the minister had implied that-or in some of the comments that the min ister put on the record yesterday.

What I wanted to do is give some sort of an indic ation of the types of numbers that I have been getting back from this one particular survey that I sent out. Now, it is not complete in the sense that there are about 80 more than I had given the minister the other day, but I will read verba tim the actual question that I posed to my constituents. These questions are something I do on a regular basis, so these are not individuals who respond; what we are talking about is households. I do not necessarily know them all obviously.

I would ant icipate that we will probably get a few hundred mor e in, so it is only partial results, but I would think that this is a fairly strong indication of the general feeling from within the riding. The one question I posed was: do you support a minimum period of incarceration for someone who is found guilty of breaking into a residential home? Interesting response. I always give yes, no, no opinion for answers. This way there is some statistical benefit for me that can be derived out of it. Obviously, the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but this is a

summary of just over 400 people that have returned- 330 people said, yes, that there should be some sort of a minimum sentence; on the "no" side, 47; and 13 people had no opinion. I think that strongly reflects what it is that I was saying just two days ago and one of the reasons that I believe that we are being let down within the system. But always want ing to give the benefit of the doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt here would imply that there has been some miscommunication or we are not getting our message out.

That is the reason why I specifically asked the minister: for that individual who gets caught breaking into a house on a Sunday after noon, what is likely going to happen to that person? Or to get some sort of a

summary of what actually takes place, because then this way I am allowed to convey to my constituents, and maybe, like me, my constituents could possibly be wrong. What I can at the very least do, if I am wrong in my assumption, is get the correct message out to my constituents. I think that they would be pleased, for example, to hear about the home invasions, Mr. Chairperson. So information of that nature is most valuable.

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 65 The second part to that question-and I do not have a

summary of that as of yet, but I will get it to the minis ter once I do have it-was: if yes, how many months? That really fluctuated. A number of people who put "yes" did not necessarily fill it out, for whatever reasons. It varied from one month to 60 months and beyond. But the purpose of it is just to emphasize that so many people believe in the need to have some sort of a minimum incarcera tion for people who break into homes because, like me, I believe they believe that it is far worse than any other type of a property crime. It is not a property crime.

Now, the most amazing statistic-and I would ask for special attention, if I could do that, for this particular question because I was really amaz1�d with the response. The question that I posed was: do you feel our courts are too lenient on violent of fenders? Really surprised with the response: 388 said yes; 10 said no; six had no opinion. You know, it did surprise me. I did not expect that sort of a response from this question. One has to ask: who are the people that are taking the time to fill out the questionnaires? These questionnaires that I send out are not just one or two questions.

It takes a while to fill them out. A number of them I hand-deliver, just to knock on some doors, and, as I say, we will get some more. If that particular percen tage continues, I think it reinf orces one of the in itiatives that I have taken upon myself to try to put into place and to present to the Chamber. I know I have had opportunity to touch base with both the Free Press reporter and the Sun reporter, indicated that I would be doing it; I do plan on doing it. Time has not allowed me to get it done as of yet, but my intentions are at some point to do it, and that is, it was going to be a petition.

Now, I actually have it worded, and I want just to take the time, just so at the very least it is on the record. * (14 50) It is the standard petition addre ssed to the Legislature: We humbly sweareth that an independent judicia ry does not justify a total lack of public accounta bility; That the lack of public confidence and the level of frustration in our judicial system continues to grow; Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to advise the minister of the need to consider establishing an independent judicial review committee to report to the Legislature on ways in which our judicial system can better serve the public of Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson, I started working on this particular petition before I started to get any sort of tabulation of results, and once I have seen the results, I real ly do not believe I am going to have too much of a problem getting signatures on this particular petition, and if it was within my budget I am sure I could probably mail these petitions out to the indi viduals who have been replying to me and probably get them returned very quickly. But the purpose is not to get a large number of signatures.

More important ly, for this particular issue for me personally, is to make the minister aware, to lobby in the best way that I can, so the first opportunity I get back into knocking on some doors, I will be personally asking individuals to sign this particular petition and whenever the opportunity is there.

It is just to make a statement, so I am not going to say I am going to bring in thousands of signatures, whether it is 10 signatures or it is 10 0 signatures, I think the significa nce is very well demonstrated in the numbers that I have presented to this particular committee in terms of the general lack of confidence.

I really do believe that is there because of the whole resistance to any sort of change in an area in which it is nece ssary, and there is a role for us as elected officials to make sure that those that are charged with the responsibilities of the judicial system are being held somewhat accountable to a certain degree, always wanting to watch out for the importance or the need to maintain judicial independence. I recognize that. I have said that on numerous occasions.

I sincerely believe that, but I do not want to use that as an excuse for not addressing what I know my constituents want me to address with the Minis ter of Justice. There are no doubt many areas that are being talked about or caused the frustration for my constituents. It is not under the jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba and we need to see some changes in Ottawa, but I think we have a responsibility to do what we can internally in order to alleviate some of those frustrations.

38 66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 I would conclude by asking the one question, at least this portion of my questioning by asking the one question of the minister because I really and truly do want to get some, a better idea of the break-ins, of when could I anticipate receiving information as to the number of successful prosecutions of individuals that have broken into homes in some sort, whether it is percentage or some sort of an idea. For example, how many individuals would have been given a suspended sentence that had been successf ully prosecuted?

How many did not spend a day in jail, or a percentage? We know that there are hundreds of individ uals who are involved. I would like to think that there has got to be something from within the department or the judicial system that allows us to say here are the number of break-ins that were prosecuted and 10 percent of them had no jail time or inca rcera tion time whatsoever; 20 percent served from this period to this period.

I would think that there has got to be something and I would appeal to the minis ter to expedite this par ticular issue because it is something that I would include in future cor respondence to my constituents. It is either I have to continue to very strongly press for change, or I have to start pressing mor e for getting the communic ation better established so that people can start believing or having more belief or stronger beliefs or showing more confidence, I should say, within our judicial system, so I have asked that of the minis ter. Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I will not go over some of the aspects that I have already addressed. I certainly enjoyed my discussion with the member two days ago in terms of this particular issue. As I have already indi cated, the home invasion has been a matter that has been taken very seriously in this province. I believe that we have established a benchma rk of about 10 years in terms of sentences for those types of offences. Certainly that is what the Court of Appeal is willing to impose. Indeed, there may be other situations where that may not be sufficient.

I believe our department will continue to monitor that situation to ensure that appropriate sentences are imposed. I think that kind of a sentence sends out a message that people will be very careful before contempla ting that type of activity. It is one of the reasons why I am still a firm believer in the constructive murder sections that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down. When people jointly go to commit a dangerous act, and I am thinking especially of armed robberies, under those old cons tructive murder sections-1 believe it was

Section 213 of the Crim inal Code that the Supreme Court struck down-it used to be that you were a party to the offence when somebody got killed during the course of that robbery. It was not just the main perpetrator that was convicted of murder, but it was all parties were convi cted of murder. I thought that sent out a very, very strong message to anyone par ticipating in any degree in a robbery or some kind of a violent activity or an activity where that kind of risk to any reasona ble person, any objective thinking person, that was a consequence.

So our Supreme Court of Canada decided that, on the basis of the Charter of Rights, that was unconstitutional, and I disagree with that position. I still disagree with that position. I believe constructive murder was a very, very important tool that the police needed in order to get the job done. I would indi cate that many American states still have constructive murder on the books and still continue to convict individuals on the basis of constructive murder. I think it is not an issue of law as much as it is philosophy. Sometimes we find the Charter being used to advance political rather than legal interests.

I say that without hesitation because one cannot divorce political judgments from the Charter, because there is essentially very little guidance given to the courts in trying to determine what in fact should be done with respect to any situation. * (1 500) My point of view is that why should these political decisions be made by nine appointed people as opposed to members of Parl iament who are elected. A constituent pointed out a very interesting fact to me in asking me whether or not one had to be a citizen of Canada in order to be a provincial judge.

I thought about that, and I realized that in order to be a lawyer in Canada it is no longer required to be a Canadian citizen. That was struck down as unconstitut ional, that requirement by the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of a case coming out of British Columbia. So

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3867 one has to be essentially a landed immigrant to be capable of being a lawyer. Now, if that is the case, then the only qualification to be a judge in this province, a provincial judge, is to be a person at the bar for five years. Well, that leads to the interesting situation where a noncitizen could technically be empowered to strike down laws under our Charter of Rights that citiz ens who are elected by citizens have passed. I thought that was an interesting situation.

So he brought it to my attention, and I thought that was something worth considering, because all of these decisions involve political cons idera tions, yes, in a legal context, but they are policy decisions. So I am concerned when some of our laws that citizens have passed on the basis of their considered opinion, and then our courts strike that down. Now, I am still very pleased that our courts have gone along with the higher sentences in home inva sions. I think they are very, very important. As I indica ted to the member, I have a great deal of sympathy for minimum jail sentences in certain cases.

Again, we: run into the difficulty with the courts striking those down under the Charter of Rights, and, as I have ind icated on a prior answer, I think the parliament has been made very wary of implementing minimum sentences.

I think even if one does not implement minimum sentences, I think in order to establish some kind of consistency across Canada and even perhaps Manitoba, minimum sentencing guidelines I think would be of great assistance so that the citizen out there knows that if a certain offence has been committed, the court looks at a certain sentence as being the appropriate one and can lower that or raise that, depending on mitigating or aggrava ting factors. So, again, I think that would be a positive step. Now, barring both mmtmum sentences and sentencing guidelines, are there other options that we can come up with?

I think there are:, and those discussions are going on presently in my department. The area of break and enter specifically is one that has been the subject of discussions within our department to see what can be done, failing any substantive federal legislative action. So I think the member, in that respect-for me, it is prema ture to comment on that issue, but I certai nly have a great deal of sympathy for his position.

In fact, the survey that he has conducted is a very helpful one and ins tructive one, and I look forward to seeing the full survey so that we can consider that in any policy discussions that we have within the department and indeed within the Legislature and between members. The issue of the petition is a good one. I am very supportive of petitions. I think petitions, especially when one looks at who is signing these petitions, are very instructive.

The more anonymous the names are in the sense that they are not recognizable as being advocates or public figures of one sort or another, the more credibility the petition takes on for me. I am speaking personally. Perhaps members in my caucus do not always agree on that point. I happen to believe that the average citizen taking the time to sign that type of petition, to put his or her name down to it, is a very significant matter.

The member knows that it is very difficult to go out and get memberships in a political party, even if those memberships were free, or to get somebody to sign up on a union card or join any kind of an organiza tion. In my opinion, all things being equal, a citizen thinks very carefully before signing one of those petitions, and, even where a citizen does so very quickly, it is probab ly as a result of having thought about it for a long time and this is the first opportunity that he or she has in expressing that opinion in a concrete way.

So I would encourage the member to continue in that activity of the petition that he has mentioned. In respect of the specific figures on break and enters, we do not track them in that type of a formal way, nor do we have the technology at this time to be able to track those se:ntences. We look at what sentences are given in terms of a range, perhaps, that the Court of Appeal has said is acceptable, that benchma rk that the Cour t of Appeal sets, because the Court of Appeal is essentially the court that sets the length of sentences. It is not the Supreme Court of Canada.

They have consistently refused to get involved in sentence appeals, where it is just a strict sentence appeal. So it is our Court of Appeal for the Province of Manitoba that essentially sets what a sentence will be. In one respect that is not good, because we get real discrepancies occurring right across Canada. So for

38 68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 certain offences you may get punished a lot in one jurisdiction and not as much in another, and I think that is not quite right. I would prefer to see more of a standard ized approach, and that is why I am a believer in a minimum sentence or at least sentencing guidelines right across Canada at least as something to measure it agai nst. In Manitoba, we will have, for example, the Court of Appeal saying: this is the acceptable range for a break and enter or a home invasion. We know in Manitoba now what the acceptable sentence is for a home invasion.

It is not 14 years. That is too high. Ten years appears to be what the Cour t of Appeal has said is an acceptable sentence, and there will be mitigating and aggravat ing factors that will lower that sentence or raise that sentence. So that is how Crown attorneys have trad itionally determined whether or not a sentence is appropriate. It is what I did when I was a Crown attorney and I believe what most Crown attorneys still do.

The point that I was leading to is that with the prosecution information system that is being established through technology and computeriza tion, PRISM, that type of informa tion will be available. We will begin to build a database that will give us that type of informa tion.

So at this time the only thing that I could do for the member, and I will still have my staff see what kind of informa tion we can give, but I do not think it will be any more specific than the points that I raised last day, where it essentially means that the mini mum sentence would be a suspended sentence and a maximum on what one could consider an ordinary break and enter, where perhaps there are multiple break and enters or extensive damage, would be three to four years. * (1510 ) The problem with break and enters, which is not always evident, is that you will have the offence reading: break and enter with intent to commit an ind ictable offence, so the intent could technically be murder.

So there you have break and enter with intent, but you could have a very severe sentence, but the plea was one to break and enter. So you could get a sentence of seven years and yet it looks like, well, somebody got a conviction of break and enter and got seven years. The other wording could be: break and enter and did therein into a dwelling house and did therein commit the indictable offence of theft, and he could have stolen a few dollars and the person would have got a suspended sentenc e. Now, you will always see those kinds of extremes because of the nature of the offence itself.

I do not think that prevents us from establishing some kind of a target as to what is acceptable. Then if it is break and enter with intent to commit murder, if that is the appropriate case or if it is the only case that the Crown can make, then perhaps that then becomes an aggrava ting factor where the bar should be raised ra ther than lowered or remain at that sort of standard position. So even when we get that information on computer, that will not necessarily help us determine what an average sentence is.

They will still continue to fluctuate quite wildly, just because of the nature of crime and, secondly, because of the particular attitudes of individual judges and the discretion that the Court of Appeal allows them in their sentencing capacity. The last point in this was the member's reference to the independent judicial review committee. I agree with the member that it is very impor tant that we begin to speak about ideas, that we do not, as I have indi cated earl ier, just because we have done business one way for the last 12 5 years does not mean we have to continue in that way.

I noted with interest that a Mr. Robert Desja rlais from Thompson wrote a letter in today's Winnipeg Free Press. Well, I am sure that is Mr. Bob Desjarlais of the United Steel Workers, the husband of the NDP M.P. from Churchill, and bas ically he says that even the idea of elections is on a slippery slope to mob rule, quoting Frances Russell. If Bob Desja rlais is in fact that Bob Desja rlais and the authority he is relying on is Frances Russell, then I think that there is lots of room still to debate this issue as to whether or not that is on the slippery slope to mob rule. I do not believe that.

I do not think that anybody seriously suggests that just because you elect certain judges you have mob rule. This is without saying that I agree with elections or not. I think that is a discussion that needs to take place, -

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 69 because I have heard my constituents say it over and over agai n. What do I tell my constituents? It is not a good idea? It is something we should not do? I know better because I am the Attorney General'1 You know, I am only the Attorney General as long as they decide that they will send me to the Legislature. So I have a role to represent their view, separate and apart from my function as Minis ter of Justice and Attorney General, and I think the discussion has to start with an examination of the idea of: what is judicial independence?

If one goes back in our history, the ide:a of judicial independence, central to that concept was getting a fair trial , that an accused has a fair trial . I do not think there is anybody in this Legislature that wants to see some one not have a fair trial . Everyone here does. Every one. No matter what role we played prior to coming to the Legislature, whether we were prosecutors, whether we were police, whether we were formerly with the army, it does not matter. We all believe in that concept.

But what we have seen is an elaboration on that principle of judicial independence by the courts over the last number of years that I think needs examination. Do we, as a society, wish to see judicial independence used, and I do not say that in a nega tive way when I use the word "used," but used for purposes of essentially collective agreements. Well, that is a very good question to ask, and when my consti tuents ask me that question or put that proposition to me, I am not in a position to say: you know, the judges of the Supreme Comt of Canada indi cated that that is an appropriate role for that

section of the Charter and, therefore, it is beyond my ability or competence to question or even to provide you with more of an answer than, say, well, that is what the Supreme Court of Canada decided. Once we stop questioning our institutions, then the institutions that were designed to serve the people no longer do that. Then we start to lose touch with the reason for these institutions being created. So questioning of authority, questioning of institutions, questioning of established practice is absolutely necessary to the health of our democratiic institution.

Whether I agree or not that elected judges are a good thing or terms for judges are a good thing, do our citizens not have the right to ask the question without being accused by people like Mr. Desjarlais that this is simply on the slippery slope to mob rule?

I mean, I have to shake my head and say: if freedom of speech in this country, as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, means that a prostitute can stand on a street comer and communi cate for the purposes of prostitution and that falls within freedom of speech, certainly an ordinary citizen asking the question of should we have elected judges, how could that be any less deserving of protection under our Charter?

If we, as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, cigarette advert ising is protected speech, that commercial activity is protected speech, how can we say: if that is protected, why is it not the right of our citizen to say: I am wondering ifthere is a better way of administering justice in our country. I find that very, very troubling and very strange that someone would suggest that that is on the slippery slope to mob rule. In fact, that is the lifeblood of democracy that we ask those questions. So I think that we need to examine these issues. We need to talk about these things.

The member has suggested an independent judicial review committee. I do not think at this point I am prepared to make any such commitment. I have certainly indi cated my willin gness to participate in the Alberta proceedings, to partici pate with min isters there, to initia te initia tives here that I think are responsive to some of the concerns of our citizens. But whether I agree to a formal process or not, one of the things that I will not do is say to our citizens that you are not entitled to speak about a particular issue.

Our citizens are entitled to speak about an issue and to question institutions, be they govern ment or other institutions. So I look forward in the next couple of mon ths to developing some of these ideas further in con junction with other members in the House, including the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and I do not think I can give you any other information than what I have already said. If my staff, in any way, can provide the member with additional information, Mr. Chair, I will certainly pass that information on to him. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I recall an

article that was in one of our daily papers, and it was a

3870 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 response, I think it was from the Chief Justice, saying that we needed to see mor e action from politicians, or there was an

article saying that they have to take more actions. I look at the results that I got thus far on that one question that I had posed where we had 330 people saying that, for example, there should be a minimum sentence for a brea k-in. * (1 520) The min ister indica tes that the Court of Appeal is what, in essence, sets the parameters of what the sentence will, in all likelihood, be. I am surprised that we are not able to, for example, get a number of how many people received a suspended sentence for break and enter.

Under the PRISM system, we will maybe be able to get that number; hopefully, we will be able to get that kind of a number. Why? Because what do you do if you have, on the one hand, public expectation, and it is clearly demonstrated here that there be some form of a minimum incarcera tion period, and then you have the Cour t of Appeal that says that is not going to be the case.

So you have the will of the public, and I am not saying with 1 00 percent certainty that is going to be the conclusive will of the public, but on first glance from the results that I have been getting, I would think that you would have a good percentage of the population suggesting that that is, in fact, what they would like to see. So the judicial system which is supposed to serve the public, at least in part, I would think, is not necessarily fulfilling what expectations the public has of it.

Ifthat same principle, if you like, is applied to the government of the day, the public can then choose to throw that government out of office. I am not an advocate of electing judges. I do not think that is the direction to go. If people want to talk about it, that is fine. I do not have any problem with people who want to talk about it. I just think it would be a mistake personally. A term position is something, especially at the provincial level, that I think is quite respon sible. One-term appointments, they can still receive federal court appointments.

I think that that might be something that is worthwhile at least talking about and looking at. But I think there is something missing, and maybe the min ister would be able to tell me what it is that is m1ssmg, when you have an overwhelming public opinion saying that this is what we want from our courts, and the Court of Appeal makes the decision that the public is not going to get that. The specific example I am referring to, again, would be the break-in. Can there be anyt hing done?

When it is an issue that is brought up at the door, do you say, well, complain to the courts, complain to the Minis ter of Justice? How do you ensure that there is some sense of that accounta bility for the public? I am very sensitive to the whole issue of mob rule. know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I differ in some of our opinions at times. I want to be sensitive to that, but I think there are some basics that are there that do need to be addressed, and no one wants to be perceived as being a racist if , in fact, they bring up an issue that is sensitive to ethnic min orities.

No one wants to be perceived as being a hangman, if you want to be able to provide what I believe is constructive criticism or a dialogue on what I believe is a valid point. So can the minis ter indi cate when you have the Court of Appeal that sets the parameters and that those parameters do not come close at all to what the public as a whole, not 5 I percent, 52 percent, but 85 precent, want to see, what is the answer? Mr. Toews: Well, I think it is a good question, but the answer is as basic as our constitutional structure in this country. That is how basic an answer it is.

In I 98 I or 19 82, we went from a parliament ary democracy to a cons titutional democracy, and that is a very, very radical change, and people did not realize it. I mean, the agenda that Prime Minis ter Trudeau had at that time was-he was not parti cularly concerned about civil liberties. He never was interested, I believe, in civil liberties. That was not his goal. I mean, we saw how he reacted in I 970 with the War Measures Act. This was a person who was quite willing to abrogate our civil liberties at a moment's notice.

One can argue about whether that was an appropriate action or not, but it was an action taken by our democra tic leaders, and one has to see it in that context. The real agenda, it has been argued, that Prime Minis ter Trudeau had was not one of civil liberties but,

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 71 indeed, of certain educational and language rights, and he knew he could never pass that in our country as a constitutional amendment by itself, thos•! educational and language rights. But what you do is you stick those rights into the Troj an horse of civil liberties, and that is what he did. Now, I think very, very shrewd politically that he did it, because how can on e argue with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms? To say you are against rights and freedoms is like sayin g that you are agai nst apple pie and motherhood. I mean, how can you bt� against that?

So when people did question what was going on, people like the former Premier of Mani toba Sterling Lyon, when he said there is something very, very radical going on here, our democracy is being fundamentally change d, power is being taken away from the people who speak through their elected representa tives, nobody listened to him. But that was the problem, and it was not just Sterling Lyon who said that. It was Roy Romanow in Saskat chewan who said that. Ultimately, democratically they voted in the usual-or they agreed, as was their democratic right to do so.

So in the normal democratic system these decisions, if they were wrong, they could be changed under our parliame ntary democracy . They could be changed. Can they be changed now? An Honourable Member: A constitutional amend ment. Mr. Toews: The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) says a constitutional amendment. An Honourable Member: How many have we seen? It could happen. * (1 530) Mr. Toews: And he says it could happen. We have put ourselves into a

part icular legal straitja cket and n ot just with respect to things that we like. For example, there are things about the Charter of Rights that I like. I believe

Section 15 of the Charter is fundamental to our countr y-equality. It is the equality s•ection. In our multicultural, multir acial society, I think that is an important

section to have. There are other sections that I happen to agree with as well, but the application of these constitutional principles to the area of criminal law is something that I have grave concerns about. I mean, we have seen parliament move to protect women in a number of cases when the system made them victims, especially when they were victims of sexual assault, and the steps that parliament took to protect those women were struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional. The balance was always tilted in favour of the rights of the accused.

I think not enough consideration, if it was my opinion that counted, was given to the rights of these victims. One of the reasons we see today the whole develop ment of victims' groups is not necessarily because we are more victimized, but because we have fewer avenues to change thin gs. The Constitution prevents parliamen tarians in many respects from taking proactive steps that everybody recognizes ar e nece ssary. We just look to 19 82 and say we did it to ourselves.

So this emphasis of frustration on the part of victims is a natural outgrowth of that mistake that was made in 19 82, where a Prime Min ister with a particular agenda brought a Jot of baggage into the area of criminal Jaw that I thin k has been not healthy for our criminal justice system. Again, people might criticize me for that point of view. I make no apologies for stating my opinion in that respect. So we have moved from a parliamen tary democr acy that for hundreds and hundreds of years served Great Br itain very well.

We adopted an American system, a republican system, that essentially is not as flexible, is not as ada ptive and without the safeguards that the Amer icans have in their Constitution. In my opinion, in 19 82, we adopted the worst of all worlds, and that is what we are living with today. I am not one who is simply going to give up and say there is nothing we can do about it. I think there still are things that we can do about it. There are things that I have mentioned, par ticular programs that our government can undertake, that we will undertake , that we have undertake n.

We will continue to do that, but, agai n, we will have to recognize that is only in a particula r context that we will be able to do that. That context is the Charter of Rights as those rights are defined by the

38 72 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 Supreme Court of Canada, not by the politicians and not by the people. One last point. I have mentioned from time to time here about the Reform Part y's proposal in respect of reviewing decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, where those decisions affect laws of parliament. People are dismissive of it because, well, it comes from the Reform Party. I do not care where a good idea comes from. I do not care whether it comes from a Li beral, a New Democrat, a Social Credit. If it is a good idea, it is a good idea.

So that kind of proposal, agai n, is worthy of discussion. In fact, I think, it is one of the few proposals that we will ever successfully be able to bring about in terms of restoring that balance between the power of the elected people and the powers of appointed judges. I think it is a very impor tant step. We should not lightly dismiss this, because it comes from a political party that we may not happen to agree with. Mr. Lamoureux: Unfortuna tely, within the answer the minis ter gave, it does not necessarily answer the specific question.

One would wonder, for example, does the department through the Crown's office not have the opportunity to appeal decisions? If in fact you have in this case break and enters, where individuals are receiving suspended sentences, and the government, if it believes that there is a need for a minimum sentence in this area that it would be an automatic appeal no matter what the circumstances surrounding it might be, much like you have zero tolerance with domestic abuse. No matter what the cir cumstances, there are some obligations oflaw enforcement officers.

So, I think, those types of things would have been what I would have suggested to my constituents if they would oppose the question. I was hoping that I would be given maybe another idea or two as opposed to the constitutiona l debate. If it was the constitutional debate, I have quite a bit of thoughts on the constitutional debate. Actually, having gone through, I can recall our Prime Minister signing with the Queen and others the Charter of Rights back in the early '80s and repatri ating the Constitution.

I think you have had several Prime Minis ters prior to Trudeau that attempted to repatriate the Constitution to bring it home and were not successful. I think that one of the primary things that Mr. Trudeau at the time was trying to accomplish was to bring our Constitution, as we did have-well, it was

an act of the British Parliament, the BNA Act, to bring it home and to repatriate the Charter of Rights. From what I had understood, and I would have been relatively young at that time so I am not quite as keen on it, but the Charter of Rights is something that came along on the side. One of the aspects of that whole constitutional debate that was quite positive, I had thought, was the notwith standing clause. The current Premier, when it was suggested, in fact, he went beyond the suggestion in which it was inc orporated of the doing away of the notwi thstanding clause.

Given what the minister has just said, and I had no intention of getting into the Constitution, but no doubt after the Quebec election, especially ifthere is another government outside of the PQ, there will be some sort of constitutiona l discussions.

This min ister, if there are no changes whether electoral or within cabinet, could very easily be sitting around a table talking about constitutional change. *( 15 40) Given the minis ter's comments-! am personally and at one time a min ority opinion from within; we were a large caucus at the Liber al Party-1 always maintained that the notwithstand ing clause was a positive thing and defini tely worthwhile keeping. So I am interested in whether or not this par ticular min ister supports the notwithstand ing clause, but I digress consi derably from the original line of questioning.

I will just let the minister answer that question. It was only because of his answer, Mr. Chairperson, that I went as far on that particular issue as I did before I get right back to what I was wanting to conclude on. Mr. Toews: Whether I support the notwithstanding clause or not, I believe that it is the notwithstanding clause that acts as a political release valve that allowed Quebec to stay in Confedera tion despite the fact that many rulings went agai nst certain statutory provisions that government passed.

So it performs a very, very important political function which I think is fundamen tal to a political compact that we have here, this political Confederation, because the change from the parliamentary democracy to a constitutional

June 3, 19 98 LEG ISLA liVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3873 democracy also went-there was a change from a political compact between provinces to a l·egal contract and that, again, fundamental difference, fundamental difference. So, I think, given that we have: this Charter of Rights and that 19 82 Constitution, many would argue that it is that necessary political release valve that allows provinces who cannot tolerate certain decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in areas of their jurisdiction to express politically what they think. So I want to leave it at that.

I am not saying that it is the best solution or it is a good solution; I am just saying that in the past, I believe, it has performed a very valuable function in keeping Canada together. The issue just on minimum sentence and zero tolerance, very quickly. Zero tolerance is very different than minimum sentences. Zero tolerance relates to the prosecutorial role of the Attorney General and the police forces. That is, they and the Attorney General have the full constitutional authority to lay criminal char ges.

But once that charge is laid, as zero tolerance authorizes police forces to do, in fact requires police forces to do if there is a reasonable 'likelihood of convicti on-the legal test has not changed in zero tolerance. It is the same. The only diff.erence is that once that reasonable likelihood of conviction is met on the basis of evidence, then there is no di scretion on the part of the peace officer as to whether or not he or she should lay that charge . So that is within the prosecutorial role of the Attorney Gener al to set those kinds of policy directives.

Simila rly in the area of bail and the grant ing of bail, the Attorney General could set certain guidelines for the prosectors. In Manitoba, the prosecutors themselves, through discussions, have set a certain policy statement that I as Attorney Gene:ral happen to agree with. I agree with that position. I assume I could have given direction; constitutionally I could have given direction. That was not necessary because the prosecutors worked out what they considered appropriate. I agree with their position. Minimum sentences are very different.

Once a charge has been laid, then it falls into th;e bailiwick of the courts to determine how a trial is conducted, what is appropriate, and ultimately what sentence is imposed. One of the things that should be noted even in respect of sentencing -for example, if there is some kind of a plea arrange ment where defence counsel says I will have my client plead guilty to such and such a charge if the Crown will recommend a certain sentence, the Crown looks at that case and says is this in the public interest to do this?

Crowns, in that kind of situation, should never simply bargain cases away in order to avoid a trial or to avoid work, but sometimes in the public interest it is a very, very important function. For example, if a Crown attorney truly believes a murder has been committed but the evidence is not there, and indeed if it went to trial, there may not even be sufficient evidence to convict on a mansla ughter, what is the public duty of a prosecutor in that circumstance?

Is it to go to trial in any event even where there is not sufficient evidence that there will be a conviction, or does the prosecutor say I will accept on behalf of the people and on behalf of the Crown a plea to mansla ughter? And that is done, because I believe that is in the best interests of ensuring that within the system there is a measure of accounta bility, a measure of responsibility by the accused, perhaps not as much as the individ ual prosecutor would like. But that is why the Supreme Court of Canada has said in that Power case, 19 94, do not try to second guess the motives of the prosecutor.

I think the prosecutor always has to be accounta ble, always has to be ready to defend their actions, but sometimes a prosecutor cannot do that in a public way. I think a very good example was an example just raised recently in the House about the idea that a charge had not been proceeded with in 18 months. The fact is a charge was laid about a year ago. The final reports of the RCMP were not prepared until March of 19 98, just a few months ago, and the Crown attorney was given 14 volumes of 200 pages each as a result of that continuing investiga tion.

So those documents would then have to be turned over to the defence lawyer. But ifyou look at it, on the face of it, you say: 18 months, what has been going on here? Sometimes every aspect of a case cannot be explained satisfactorily in public because there are reasons. For example, I know some members in the House would like to see a greater role of victims in the actual prosecution of a case. Well, we have to remember, a Crown attorney does not simply represent

38 74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 a victim. He or she is not simply a lawyer for the victim. He represents the public interest generally, including the victim and including an accused. * (1 550) Now, if a Crown attorney were compelled at every cir cumstance to explain why they were taking certain actions, think of the scenario, where, living in a small community, as we have many here in Manitoba, where an accused person kills another person in that community.

The family members want to see justice, naturally so, and the Crown, looking at the evidence, suddenly realizes that the evidence is all melting away . There is no evidence, for one reason or another, certai nly none that would justify a murder conviction. Now, if we were to keep the victim's family fully inform ed, do we then say, well, look, the reason we are going to have to take a plea to mansla ughter is that, at the end of the day, we might land up with nothing.

How can we say that to a member of the public at that sensitive time in the prosecution when a member of the family could then leave the meeting and sit there, let us say, in a bar, unhappy with that kind of state of affairs. Say something like that, that gets back to the accused. The accused then refuses even to plead guilty to mansla ughter. We respect the confidentiality of a police investigati on, which is absolutely essential. We also have to remember that we have to respect the confidentiality and the professionalism of these Crown attorneys.

So often I hear in the House people suggesting that the Crown attorneys have been less than frank or less than diligent. Well, it is the same as suggesting that I, as a lay person, can tell my doctor how to perform open heart surgery on myself. You know, sometimes we have to recognize that there are things that cannot be publicly disclosed, that it is crucial to the admini stration of justice that they are not publicly disclosed. So we have to establish that balance. The issue of zero tolerance, there are certain policy guidelines that we can set.

Crown attorneys in certain cases will make very hard decisions that may not appear to meet the goals of that policy and yet they do so for very good reasons. The area of minimum sentences again is an issue for the courts. One last point on that issue, and we have raised this bef ore, it is not always an issue of asking parliament for tougher laws. Sometimes the laws are already there. I think it is a question of ensuring that the right evidence is put bef ore the court to convince them that standard past pra ctices of sentencing are not meeting the needs of our society.

That is a challenge that my department is faced with and will continue to address. There are steps that we are taking in a number of areas which I am not prepared to discuss publicly at this time, but I would say that is an issue that we do want to address and at least satisfy myself that we are taking all the appropriate steps in that respect. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has been very patient. I do believe that the minister and his office do have con stitutional authority that would allow for it to address some of the concerns that the public as a whole has.

The greatest one, in all likelihood-and, agai n, this is not my line of expertise. It is only in the last couple of years where I have really been getting involved in this particular issue, as I was previously concentrating ef forts in Health and Education, so I did not designate as much time or resources. Now that I have a good friend who often talks to me about Justice, my interest is somewhat piquing more, and the mor e I talk about it in the constituency, the more of an issue it becomes. So it is something where I think the public wants to see something.

I listen to the mini ster's responses, and, generally, if I was talking to some civil servants, those are the types of answers I would get, with some exceptions. There are areas in which, as I said in the past, the minis ter is somewhat bold. Mr. Chairperson, I am looking, and I use the break ins because it is what I have on my website. It is the issue which I believe so many people are concerned about, because it could happen to any one of us. Even one of the judges, I believe, had a break-in just recently. In fact, it might have been a home invas ion. I think that it is a concern that is out there.

Does the department have the constitutional authority? I believe it does in some areas that can make

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 75 a difference. I cited one of those areas, and that is in the whole area of appeals. Nothing pn:vents them, whether it is the government or it is the prosecutors as a whole, to sit down and say: look, we do not feel gener ally-and I can understand that they do not necessarily have access to the information that would allow them to get a good assessment of the situation. But if generally it is demonstrated that the public is not being well served with a particular crime against not property, but against a person, I would argue, some thing should be done.

That could be appeals. If you have, and this is why I posed the question, hypothetically, 200 prosecutions of brea k-ins, residential break-ins, and 50 percent ofth•em you have complete suspended sentences, the minis ter cannot tell me I am wrong or that I am right when I say 50 percent of those were given suspended sentences.

Maybe in the future he might be able to tell me through PRISM, but I think that if the Crowns' office were to start to appeal decisions and it was made known that they were going to be appealing these sentences because the government, based on what the public want to see happen, take stronger actions, I would think that it could have a positive impact. By taking actions of this nature, it restores some faith. We talked about zero tolerance.

I would argue that a number of years ago, whether it was women's groups collectively or individuals that did not have any sort of real comfort level prior to zero tolerance, but, because the government took a strong action, the reaction from potential victims or victims, I think, has been fairly positive. Again, it reinf orced that the government was being sensitive and taking the types of actions which they believe are impor tant.

I think that there are a number of areas within the judicial system, if you start looking at the types of crimes that are committed, in which there might be a need to address what public expectations actually are . It does not mean, as I say, if automatically you do a poll and you have 50 percent plus one and that means that is the direction government has to take. I do not believe that for a moment. I think that it has to be well thought out. That is one of the reasons why I talked about the review, Mr. Chairperson.

But to go over in some areas, I believe we put people behind bars that do not necessarily need to go behind bars. * (1 600) There might be some alternatives to that. Having said that, I would look to the minis ter to find ways in which the department can actually deal with the issues that are there and not necessarily get frustrated because of, let us say, the Court of Appeal, who ultimately determines the par ameters.

If the parameters are not acceptable, it does not mean the minis ter or the government or the Crowns' office should have to be content with that, because, ultimately, even if they end up losing every case that is brought to the Court of Appeal, if it continues and it continues long enough and hard enough, one would think that it might have a positive impa ct. So, if governments were to do this, I think that there is a little bit more accounta bility within the system. This is one idea.

The Min ister of Justice and, there is no doubt in my mind, the individu als that work for the Minis try of Justice have many more ideas than I could probably even imagine. It is just a question of whether or not the will is there to make it happen, and I think that maybe there would be some benefit, if there is, let us say, no committee or independent review, to have some sort of a public forum. We have had them in the past on education. I believe there has even been one on health, I am not too sure, but I know the government did sponsor one on education.

Maybe what we should be doing is having a public forum on justice-related issues so that individ uals can express their thoughts and we can maybe see if we can get something, or enco urage the dia logue through that sort of a mechanism, which, I think, could prove to be very beneficial. I do not believe that you are going to get a bunch of hangmen showing up for a public conference, that you will get some open-minded people and common sense should prevail. I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) would definitely be there to provide his input. Mr.

Chairperson, the bottom line is that shortly the Estimates of Justice, in all likelihood, could pass, and then the min ister-it will go through a few more days, who knows? Some say it will be long er-the session, and after the session, then we are out of it, and we do not see anyone until we are back in session for a while. It will be interesting to see what happens between now

38 76 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 and next year, as long as there is no election; or, ifthere is an election and my constituents feel it in their hearts to return me, I can assure the minis ter that there is a very good chance I will be back in the Justice Estimates, and you can rest assured that I will likely be talking about home break-ins agai n. Hopefully, the PRISM system will be up, and we will actually be able to talk about some numbers.

At that time, if the time is there for me, I will likely want to expand it beyond the home break-ins, but that is by far my first priority with respect to the issue of justice today. So I leave it at that. If the min ister wants to comment, he can. I know the member for The Maples has a few words, and I would look forward hopefully to being here next year, when we can have some more dia logue. What would be nice, and I have always thought in the Estimates process, is to allow for dialogue directly between politicians and civil servant s.

We see it in other standing committees, in parti cular, Crown corporations and so forth. How wond erful it would be, not to necessarily ask questions-and please do not be offended by it, Mr. Mini ster-not ask you the questions, but to ask some of the people that are under you some direct questions. But, failing that from happening, because I do not think it will, I do look forward to the next opportunity that I will get to do some follow-up questions on this very important issue. Thank you. Mr.

Toews: Just very briefly then, I say once agai n in respect to the issue of appeals-a couple of things I should say; we are not hesitant in this province, I think, to appeal cases, and we, by and large, have had a fairly responsive Court of Appeal, that they are responsive to many of the concerns that we have raised in certain areas. In other areas, we have not been as successful. I think, though, that we should not be afraid to lose a few appeals, even though the precedents seem against us.

I think we owe it to our people that from time to time we take cases that are not necessarily on solid legal footing, but we believe that it is the right thing to do. So, again, we should not be critical of Crown attorneys who then undertake that task and lose that case. I think that is part of the process that needs to be done. Defence lawyers do it all the time. I think the Crowns have tra ditionally been a little more reserved in their appeal for a number of reasons because of that broader public interest that a Crown attorney serves.

I will just point out that Manitoba, in respect of tra nsfers of youth to adult court, perhaps does about, I think, 40 percent of all of the transfers in Canada, even though we only have one-thirtieth of the population. This department has been extremely aggressive in ensuring that violent offenders face the full possible cons equences for their acts. Again, that is a policy direction that this department has taken and, I think, very, very successfully. The other thing that we should not forget about is that Manitoba has perhaps one of the lengthiest sentences provided for certain crimes.

I think it is Alber ta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in third place, and so of the l 0 provinces, Manitoba, the sentences rendered here are, in comparison, lengthy to other provinces. So we keep on strengthening aspects of our justice system where we need to be stronger or make stronger state ments. Zero tolerance, agai n, is a very, very good example. When I was a prosecutor many years ago, truly the position of the department was that if a woman failed or refused to testifY during one of these domestic violence trials, they were held in contempt and they were sent to jail for refusing to testifY.

We have I think, thankfully, moved light years away from that position and now provide some of the best support for partners of domestic abuse. That is certai nly a policy that I would like to see continue. There are other are as, as I have indi cated to the member, where we can take action, where we will take action, whether it is through our prosecutorial policy, whether it is through an appeal policy, whether it is lobbying the federal government for certain changes, and I mentioned one of them the other day, that Manitoba wanted a separate offence of home invasions now.

That was defeated, but that is something that I do not think is a dead issue. I think provinces like British Columbia, which experience them on a far more regular basis than here in Manitoba, would certai nly be looking at that kind of thing. I think, in time, people will come about and realize that it is a good idea, in the same way that Manitoba was instrumental-and they call them the Vodrey amendments on harassment. * (1610 )

June 3, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 77 Those were Manitoba-led amendments to the Criminal Code by the former Justice min ister, and she did an excellent job in bringing that onto the national agenda. People say that it has not proven to be very effective because only 40 or 50 percent of those matters land in convictions. The point is, those are 40 or 50 percent where there was no offence prior to those amendments being passed. So there is a remedy, even though the remedy may not always be sadsfactory. In fact, we have said that it is not always satisfactory.

We have said that we need civil legislation to complement that criminal legislation. We have done that in the area of prostitution with our johns legislation, with our johns school. We have done that with our adminis trative impaired and seizure of motor vehicles laws. We have continually supplemented the federal law where we feel that we have an appropriate area of constitutional jurisdiction and the federal government has not moved to address a particular issue. The issue that was rai sed lastly is people behind bars who should not be there. I have my assistant deputy minis ter of Corrections here, Mr.

Greg Graceffa. He is sitting out in the audience, but Mr. Gract!ffo would be more than happy to sit down with you one day and go through who should be in prisons and who should not be. We have one of the most sophistica ted classification systems in Canada in terms of the risk that prisoners pose to the public. We have very stringent policies in terms of the type of people and what type of f�cility they should be in, and we are looking at ways of improving that.

But as time goes on and as a result of certain changes in federal laws-for example, the conditional sentences-we see the type of prisoners becoming more and more deserving of being in ja il. There are very, very few people in jail who could, I think, benefit by a different system of correction. One of the areas where I think we probably do not need people in jail is the intermittents. In my opinion, if a person is safe to be out in the stre:et during the week, he does not pose much of a bigger danger on the weekends. If he is a danger on the weekends, he should also be in ja il during the week.

That is my position on intermit tents. So one of the ways that we have been able to deal with interm ittents is by entering into contracts with the Salvation Army to house our intermittents in their facility, and they have been doing a very, very good job of it. So there is an alterna tive. So we do not need to occupy prison beds with those intermittent people.

So there is an example, perhaps, of people who were in prison, who when they come into the prison cause all kinds of adminis tra tive difficulties for the correctional staff, not only adminis tra tive difficulties but security difficulties, because they will come in on the weekends and sometimes are forced to bring in contraband for other prisoners who are there on a full-time basis. So intermittent prisoners is not a par ticularly good way of dealing with people who should be inca rcera ted. I do not think it is very effective. Maybe that is a use for conditional persons.

Then there are people who should be in jail and are not. I think the greatest issue that has highlighted that concern is that of conditional sentencing. The law is badly drafted. It does not give enough direction as to what kind of people should be in jail or not, what kind of people should receive the benefit of a conditiona l sentence. In my opinion, if I had the legislative authority, people who commit serious, violent crimes should never be entitled to condition al sentences.

Our department has consistently opposed conditional sentences, not because we do not have the resources to monitor these individuals, but because the issue of the danger to the public is simply not worth the risk of letting these people out any sooner than we have to. Having said that, we have to recognize, in our provincial jail system, nobody is staying in longer than two years less a day. Ultimately these people come out. I think that our Corrections staff is diligently working to determine what kind of people can be released on temporary absences, even before the mandatory release date.

There needs to be a way, an interim period of time, in which they can slowly be reintegrated with the rest of society. I know Corr ections staff have discussed that problem with me and said if a person is dangerous, that is an issue; we need to keep them in as long as possible. But if a person simply needs supports, and all the person is doing is serving two years less a day and no probation to follow, how do we provide them with any supports or provide them with any degree of control as they are rein tegrated with society? If you serve the full sentence

38 78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 19 98 and then are released, they are absolutely free. They owe no expla nation to anyone. So the issue of temporary absences, even though the public might sometimes see that that person should not be out, because a judge gave him two years less a day and therefore he or she should serve that full time, sometimes in terms of safety to the public, that is not the best way of handling it. So Corrections staff have a very, very difficult task in that context, but they are working on that. I think that sometimes people are going to make mistakes.

We are dealing with human beings. We are not dealing with robots. Even the best classification system, which we have here in the province

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-58
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 58.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6fde7a6edf4eb86156d9bd8347b008d8c2a3f692

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