Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 11B (31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-11b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MA NITOBA Thursday, 6 March 19 80 Time: 8:00 p.m. MR. SP EAKE R, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): The Honourable Minister of Government Services. MR . ENN S: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the committees will be carrying on their deli berations in this Chambe r and in Room 254, but it's possibly advisable that we do now adjourn the House. I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Economic Development, that the House do now adjourn. MO TION presented and carried and the House adjourned until 10 :00 Friday morning.

CONCURRENT COMMI TTEES OF SUPP LY SUP PLY - ATTORNEY- GENE RAL MR. CHAIRM AN: Mr. Morris McGregor (Virden). MR . CHA IRMAN: Commit tee to order. We are on Item l.(b) (2)-pa ss; l.(b), l.(c)(l )--pass; l.(c)(2) -p ass; l.(d)(l )--pass; l.(d)(2)-pas s. The Me mber for Wolseley. MR. WILS ON : I did have a question under gun control. Well, I guess I could always pick it up under the Minister's salary. I had a question under .•. maybe the Minister could explain what this

section is because I don't have his annual report in front of me. MR . CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Minister. l.(d)(2) . MR. WILSON: It's the Canada and Manitoba gun control agreement. MR. ME RCIER: That's the operation of the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code. MR . CHA IRMAN: The Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR . J.R. (Bud) BO YCE: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney -General. This $56,400, is that just for the portion of the province for which the province is responsible for law enforcement , or are there some moneys in there that go to different municipalities, for example the City of Winnipeg?

MR . CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Minister. MR . MERCIER: This particular part of it, it's 100 percent recovery from the federal government. MR. BOYCE: On behalf of the province? rm sorry it's rather nebulous in my mind but it seems at a recent date there was some criticism about the costs of this, and I'm just wondering if there are any funds made available to the City of Winnipeg for their operation of the Police Department under this item or any other item in the Estimates for the cost of The Gun Control Act? MR . MERCIER: Under the agreement, Mr.

Chairman, the city received some start-up funds to operate the registry system in the city. The estimate of the revenue that they would have received was over-estimated. I have met wi th the city, wi th the Mayor. rve sent a letter on behalf of the province and the city to the Solictor-General expressing a concern about that. Of course there was a federal election; the new Solictor-General, now, we haven't received a response yet. - 429 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister advising us that the City of Winnipeg is suffering a net loss as a result of the under-estimate of revenues under the arrangements that were made on the gun enforceme nt? MR. MERCIER: Yes, they are not recovering their full cost of operation as was originally estimated by the federal government , and neither are we as a province under the RCM P registry offices throughout the province. MR. BOYC E: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps the Attorney-Ge neral could take as notice the question and give us the information on just exactly what this shortfall is relative to the city and to the province, if he would. MR. MERC IER: Mr. Chairman, rll provide the mem ber with a copy of the letter I wrote to the Solictor-General , which sets it all out. MR. BOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering, how did we get into this item ? Do we have enabling legislation that we had to pass in order for the province's involvement? MR.

CHAIR MAN : The Honourable Minister. MR. ME RCIER: The federal government passed ame ndm ents to the Criminal Code, Mr. Chairman, which we have to adm inister. MR. ADAM: I see. Would the municipalities be involved, these village governments that have to pay for their own policing or part thereof? MR. MERCIER: No, it wouldn't be a charge to the muncipalities outside the city. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Vital. MR . WA LDING: Mr. Chairman, while we are still discussing this matter of cost, perhaps the Minister would refresh my memo ry and tell me when this matter came into effect in this country. MR.

CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Minister. MR. ME RCIER: January 1, 19 79 . MR. WA LDING: The amount of $35, 90Q that we approved last year - can the Minister tell us how many staff that was for, whether that is expected to be all expended in this fiscal year? Does the Minister expect that all of that amount will be expended in this fiscal year? MR. ME RCIER: Yes, they're on staff now. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, just to ... we have added a third person during this year. MR. WA LDIN G: Mr.

Chairman, just on that same point, is the $48,900, does that indicate an additional person on staff, or is that merely an increase in cost? MR. MERCIER: It indicates the third person that we have added during the course of this year, the 19 7 9/80 fiscal year. MR. WA LDING: Can the Minister explain to the com mittee the division of responsibilities between his department and the various police forces in this registration and control scheme? In other words, how are the three people in his department used?

I understand it is the police forces in this province who have the most of the work involved in registration, etc. - 430 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 MR . MER CIER: The main person would be Mr . Roy Cooper, who is the head of this particula r section, and was previously in the Firearms Training Course, I think, in another depar tme nt. The function of this group would be to do the overall accounting and administering of the provisions of the Code and the relationship with the Federal Government. MR . WAL DING : I take it from what the Minister says that they have no direct involve ment with the physical registering or issuing of permits and that sort of thing. MR.

MER CIER: No, that would be done through the RC MP De tachments in the city of Winnipeg Police Force. MR. WAL DING: Do those police forces receive any compensation for the extra work through this appropriation or any other appropriation in here? MR. MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, the province would keep the revenue from the registrations outside the city, and the city keeps the revenue from the registrations inside the city - the City of Winnipeg. MR. WAL DING : Mr. Chairman, that wasn't the question that I asked.

The question I asked was: Do the police forces receive any additional revenue or moneys from the province for this extra work in registration that they are doing under this particular section? MR . MERC IER: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. WAL DING : I believe the Minister told us a little while ago that the amount is full y recoverable, and that is indicated on this page - that some $56.4 thousand is to be recovered from Ottawa. But there is an amount at the bottom of the page that says Gun Control Registration Revenue of $14 8,000. 00.

Is that the amount that is paid in licensing fees, or registration permits or whatever the term is, by owners of guns in this province? Does that come ent irely to the province? MR. ME RC IER: Yes. MR. WAL DING: So the province is making a profit on this portion of the Criminal Code? MR . ME RC IER: No. As I explained to you, for example, in the City of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg has established a number of staff man years to operate the registration of guns within the city.

It was estimated at the beginning by the Federal Government that the revenue through registrations would be sufficient to cover the full costs of the operation of those staff man years, that that hasn't proven correct. In the same way at the provincial level, there are a certain number of people associated in the RCMP with the registration of firearms, and there again the revenue does not cover the total cost of operation.

That is why I indicated to the honourable gentleman to your left that I would supply him wit h a copy of the letter to the Solicitor Gene ral that outlines this fact that the revenues haven't kept up with the expectations. MR . WAL DING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I follow what the Minister is saying there; that the City of Winnipeg has incurred some costs and the RC MP have incurred some costs. But as far as the accounts of the Province of Manitoba are concerned, there is no direct cost here because the direct cost is fully recoverable pl us $1 48,000 that the province receives in fees. Is this not correct? MR .

ME R CIER: No, Mr. Chairman, the direct cost is shown on the page of the handout I gave, which shows the total cost of the RCMP over $15 million; that is where our cost would co me in. Here the department is just trying to show the revenue from registrations. MR. WAL DIN G: That refers back to an earlier question. I asked the Mi nister whether any additional payment would be made to the city or to the RC MP because of their additional - 431 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 costs, bearing in mind that the province is receiving an additional $148 ,000.00 . Or, to take it one step further, if the province were to remit this $14 8,000 by some formula to the city and to the RC MP , would that in fact cover their additional costs? MR. ME RCIER : Mr. Chairman, $1 48.6 thousand that is shown here is the revenue the province receives through registration of firearms outside the city, but what is not shown is the cost of collecting that $1 48,600. The cost is through the RC MP , which we pay for.

We are paying for all the mem bers of the RC MP Force that are used in the col lection of these funds. Our estimates - and I don't have that figure right here - are that we are not recovering our own costs on a provincial basis; likewise the city is not recovering their own costs. That was the purpose of the letter to the Solicito r-General, and ag ain, I think the letter that I will provide to the honourable gentl eman on your left will fully explain that. MR. WA LDING: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister now whethe r that $1 48,000 is in respect to a certain start-up cost or the initial registration of firearms that is expected to, and would that be expected to drop off in future years as you are only registering ne wly-acq uired weapons or transfers of weapons? MR. ME RCIE R: Mr. Chairman, the start-up costs have been incurred. This is the anticipated revenue for the ne xt fiscal year. MR. WAL DIN G: Can the Minister indicate what the revenue was for the last year, the year in which we are in? MR.

MER CIER: We will attempt to look that up and provide the membe r with that. MR. WA LDING: Would that be the amount that is shown in the top left hand corner of the bottom half of the page at $234 ,000.00? MR . MERC IER: No, because that is just for the operation of Mr. Cooper's office. MR. WAL DING : Can the Minister explain the last item on the page, Recovery of Police Costs, 04-7. What does that mean, and why is there no amount next to it? MR . ME RC IER: That refers to the $1 48 .6, the last two lines. MR . CHAIR MAN: The Me mber for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, is the Minister satisfied that this program is working properly or effect ively , or is it ... my understanding is that some of the deal ers have lost sales over this program. Does the Minister have any information in regards to a lot of private transactions that are going on that there is no registration taking place? MR. MER CIER: Mr. Chairma n, it is felt that there has been a lack of response to it by the public . There was, under the previous govern ment, a beginning. It has been a process of reviewing it with the provinces.

I can't say what that would have ended up with, all I can indicate to you is the Solicito r-Gen eral had indicated that a review was starting and would be under way in reviewing the effectiveness of this program. Of course, nothing happened; hopefully that will be done under the new Federal Govern ment. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the Me mber for St. Vital' s question about last year's revenue, it was $1 40,000.00. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR . BOYC E: The Me mber for Ste.

Rose asked one of the questions I was going to ask about - it would seem implicit in the Attorney-Gene ral's response to several questions that either the Act was not being enforced or it wasn't being co-operated with or something, if the revenue which had been anticipated was that, you know, the discrepancy or deficiency or short fall, but the Attorney-Gen eral ment ioned that there had been ongoing neg otiations with the Federal Govern ment. Can the Attorney-General advise the Comm ittee what Manitoba's position was vis-a-vis The Gun Control Act in those negotiations with the Federal - 432 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 Government , or is the position of the government of Manitoba in support of the legislation as it exists, or does the government see so me need for ame ndm ents to the Act, or a repeal of the Act? What is the position of Manitoba vis-a-vis The Gun Control Act? MR . MER CIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, there was an assessme nt of the effect iveness of the present legislation that was about to be begun, in close consultation with our own firearms officer, Mr. Cooper. That was not in any way completed to my knowledge.

We would have liked to have had the federal governm ent's assessment of the program done on a province-by-province basis and had an opportunity to respond. MR. BOY CE: Mr. Chairman, that really doesn't answer my question. My question was, what is the position of Manitoba in these neg otiations with the federal govern ment? And, as the Attorney-General pointed out to us, it is our responsibility, through our government, to enforce the Crim inal Code, and surely they are in a position at this point in time, to proffer an opinion of how the Act works as far as Manitoba is concerned.

And surely when they go to these neg otiations, they put forward some position. And I think the people in the Province of Manitoba are entitled to know what the govern ment's position is: Are they in support of the Act as it exists; have they got some suggestions of how it could be modified as far as the statute itself is concerned, about some expansion of the program to encourage people to bring in these firearms, or some type of enforcement provisions to be expanded upon? It seems rather nebulous, the Attorney-General's non-answer to my question, Mr. Chairman. MR . MER CIER: Mr.

Chairma n, as the me mber is aware, certa inly the program was questioned by a number of people. We would support the assessme nt of the program, and I would have been happy to have seen the assess ment done, which would have given us some grounds for dealing with proposed changes. All I can say at this point in time is that we would have liked to have seen the assessment of the program undertaken. MR . BOY CE: I'll try once again, Mr. Chairman. MR . MER CIER: You won't get any further. MR .

BOYC E: Well, I will have it on the rec ord, and the record will speak for itself, these non-answers of all mem bers of the govern ment, including this Minister who flips at me , - I won't get any further. I will repeat for the record, Mr. Chairman, I think the people in the Province of Manitoba are entitled to know the position of the governme nt.

I can appreciate the Attorney-General wanting to have the federal government's assessment of the program, but nevertheless, as he pointed out to us earlier, it is the responsibility of his office to administer the Criminal Code in this province, and I think the people in the province are entitled to an expression of this government' s opinion, vis-a-vis The Gun Control Act. And the Minister is absolutely right, he doesn't have to answer the question, except to the electorate, when the election is called. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PA WL EY : Mr.

Chairman, dealing with the entire question of gun control, the position that was taken in 19 76 and 1977 at the time of the proposed imple mentation of the gun control legislation by Manitoba was that gun control was a policy which might very well vary in its effectiveness from one part of the country to another. In Ontario and Quebec and British Columbia, I recall at that time, there was a great deal of pressure for gun control legisl ation. There was some feeling on the part of other provinces that the need was much less, obviously less on the prairies than in Ontario or Quebec, or in the Maritimes.

So that each province had to weigh, based upon the analysis that the province would undertake, as to whether or not they would like to introduce a program of gun control. That was a position that was presented at that time to the Justice Ministers of the day. I'm wondering if that position is one which the present Attorney-General adopts, or whether in fact that position is no longer assumed by the Attorney-Gen eral insofar as his federal- provincial meetings are concerned with his counterparts throughout the length and breadth of the country. - 433 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR. ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman, there's only been a brief discussion on this matter at a meeting with the federal Attorney-Gen eral and the federal Solicitor-General last fall, at which time the federal Solicitor-General indicated that he was initiating an assessment of the progra m on a province-by-province basis. We indicated that we would participate in that assessment, and it was foreseen by me that when that assessment was completed, we would then have an opportunity to review the total information that was compiled, and determine at that time whether there was any ne ed for any changes.

MR . PAWLE Y: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder whether the Attorney-Gen eral agrees with the position which I me ntioned earlier, that there be flexibility insofar as the implem entation of gun control province-to-province, or whether he feels gun control should be done on a universal basis throughout Canada? Mr. Chairman, I do find disquieting that the Minister appears not to have a position pertaining to this le gisl ation, pro or con, and at the same time it appears that the Minister was not, in fact, initiating the evaluation.

He makes reference to the Solicitor-General initiating an evaluation from province-to-province; he indicates some participation, I don't know to what degree, of provinces within this analysis.

But surely the Minister is the chief admin istrator of laws in the Province of Manitoba, based upon his relationship to the RC MP , which he's responsible for, police forces, which he responds for, the experiences that derived within his own department, including the Manitoba Poli ce Commission, and also through other various sectors of his department - surely he must have, after two, three years of experience, some opinion relating to this. I think the Minister has to get off the fence and indicate where he stands. MR . MER CIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is incorrect in one major point. He refers to two or three years exp erience. The program came into effect January 1, 19 79. So when this matter was raised in the fall by the Solicito r-General, we had just over six months exper ience of actual operation. So at that point in time, certainly an assessme nt of the difficulties which would have begun about now, would have been useful. Certainly there has to be flexibility, not only from province to prov ince, but regions within a province.

There are different circumstances, but the Honourable Leader of the Opposition's main premise is incorrect - we haven't had two or three years of exper ience. At the time of meeting with the Solicito r-General we just had a little over six months. MR. PAW LE Y: The Attorney-Genera l has now 14 months experience, and is he indicating that he has formed no views, after 14 months of experience? More than 14 mo nths of exper ience, going on 15 months of experience. MR. ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier that I would be prepared to take the same position as we took in the fall with the federal governm ent.

We wo uld support their becom ing involved in a review on a province-by-province basis of this federal le gisl ation. MR . PAW LE Y: Mr. Chairman, it's certainly no problem to take a position in support of a review. I think we all could support any study or any review. This govern ment is famous for its reviews and its studies. But surely the Minister himself, based upon information that he's rece ived after 15 months of experience with the legisl ation, must have formed some opinion. If he has not, then I will drop the question and will not pursue it.

I had hoped that after 15 months, the Minister would have a position beyond one of indicating that he would favour a study of the legisla tion by the Solicitor-General - not even by himself, but by the Solicito r-General from Ottawa - that the Minister himself would surely , at this stage, have arrived at some opinion which he would wish to express. MR . ME RCI ER : Mr. Chairman, just to correct one part of the Hono urable Leader of the Opposition's co mments, we would be an active participant in that review. We would have been, and I hope we will be under the new govern ment. MR .

CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Me mber for St. Vital. MR. WA LDING: Mr. Chairman, just for cla rification of a statement the Minister made a few minutes ago that the comparable revenue for last year was $140 ,000.00 . Could he clarify whether he's speaking of a calendar year there, or a fiscal year, and if so, which one? - 434 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR. MER CIER: It's an anticipated amount by the end of this fiscal year, the end of March. MR . WAL DING : Mr. Chairman, can the Minister explain why the amount for the forthcoming yea r is anticipated at $148,000 while the past year, which would presumably include most of the start-up and initial registrations, should only be $140 ,000 .00? MR . ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman, we can only make educated guesses on these aspects. Obviously, the program will be more widely known in the ne xt year, and that is the educated guess as to what the revenue will be. MR. BOYCE: Well, Mr.

Chairman, in listening to the responses of the Attorney-Gen eral, I don't know how other membe rs of the Comm ittee feel, but because of the uncertainty, in my mind at least, of what the position of the Province of Manitoba i3, I am forced to move, Mr. Chairman, that in Resolution 15 (

d) be reduced to the sum of $1.00. I so move, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAffiMAN: The Me mber for Em erson. MR. AL BERT DRIE DGER: Could you clarify the statement of Member for Winnipeg Centre pl ease? MR . CHAffiM AN: Well, as I understood it, he moved that Resolution 15, Item l.(d)(2) be reduced to $1 .00. It is a case of getting it cla rified, is it a leg al, you know maybe it is. There is a Motion on the floor, moved that Resolution 15, Item l. (d)(2) be reduced to $1.00 . MR. MERC IER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

While you were considering this matter, I think some mem bers have walked out without - you are indicating how long your consideration of this matter would take place. I know ..• MR. CHAffiM AN: The Honourable Me mber for Arthur, the Minister of Agriculture. HO N. JAMF.S E. DOWN E Y: My point of order is that I don't think that the Minister was given an opportunity to further explain the situation before we put the question. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Membe r for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: Well, I didn't fully understand . . .

I would like to have the me mber repeat the reasons for the motion and then I could properly vote on it. MR. HANUS CHAK: That's the me mber's problem too. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . PAW LE Y: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture made a statement that the Minister hadn't had an opportunity to express his views. That is the problem , we tried to obtain an expression of view from the Attorney-General; we were unsuccessful. I would move that the question be put. MR. MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

When the motion was made, the motion was, at least to me, very clear what was meant by it, but nothing happened for some period of time. And I app reciate, Mr.

Chairman, that you wish to carry out your responsibilities to the Comm ittee as fairly and as impartially and as correctly as possible, and in order to do so we arranged - obviously you wished to consult with the Chief Clerk in order to obtain his views, in order to follow the correct procedure - and I think by reason of that a certain amount of time was being taken with nothing happening, as a result of which some membe rs may have gone out for a cup of coffee. MR . AD AM: We can't wait forever, Mr . Chairman. - 43 5 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR. ME RC IER: Okay, go ahead. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR . BOY CE: To the supposed point of order, which is obvious to everybody in the room, for the delaying tactics. Have I your ear, Mr . Chairman? MR. CH AIRMAN: No. MR. BOYCE: I have not your ear or is it just the babble behind me that you are going to pay attention to, Mr. Chairman? MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR . BOYC E: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, the Attorney-Gen eral knows full well why the question is put, because if he intends to sit there and give flip answers and he is not going to answer questions, then this will probably flow at every resolution. MR. CHAIR MAN : The Chairman recognizes the resolution on the floor and now is the time for the question. MR S. WESTBURY : I wish to speak to the point of order also please, Mr. Chairma n. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Me mber for Fort Rouge. MR S. WESTBURY : I think my question is just as relevant as the other points of order I have heard put to the Chair in the past few minutes.

I really do feel, if I may say so, that the Minister has a responsibility to tell this Comm ittee and the world what the position of the Minister is, and of his govern ment, is in relation to gun control. It is very difficult to vote on this without knowing exactly what the position is that is being put to us. MR . PARASIUK: Ronald Reagan disclosed his position .•. MR . CHAIR MAN : The Chair recognizes a resolution on the floor and a motion and now is a vote. All those in favour of that resolu tion. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the results being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 10. MR. CHAIRM AN: I declare the motion lost.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . PA WL EY : On a point of order , I believe the count should have seven in support of the Motion, not six. MR. CHAIRM AN: Then the Chair recogn izes there was an error and we will have a recount. Those in favour of the Motion? A RE CO UNT was taken, with the fol lowing results: Yeas 7, Nays 10. MR . CHAIRMA N: The Chair recognizes the resolution as lost. 1.(d)(2)-pass; 2.(a) -(Interjections)- You know, if we are in the House someone stands up, and if you are moving or holding your hand over your ear, you really haven't given the Chairman a chance to re cognize you.

I look around and there is a hand here and there; unless we have some signal to the Chair, I don't think the Chair has the right to wait, but I want to be fair and recognize everybody. All right, we had passed l.(d)( 2). MR. HANU SCHAK: Mr. Chairman, be fore we passed it, I think that it should go on the record the delaying tactics resorted to by this govern ment in an attempt to put through an item on the Estimates. They resorted to a variety of means to delay the vote on it in order to rally sufficient support to pass the item. And I think, Mr. Chairman, that that ought to go on the record. - 436 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 MR . CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for Ste. Rose. MR . AD AM: Mr. Chairman, now that we have got this out of the way, I would like to still ask the Minister if he has received any compla ints from the gun shops or the firearm shops as to opposition to this legisation; if this has reduced any of their sales because of the bureaucracy involved and the obligation of having to obtain a permit be fore buying a specific firear m? I would like to know ... MR. CHAIR MAN : To the Me mber for Ste. Rose, we have already passed l. (d)(2). There is an ... MR . ADA M: We haven't passed it, Sir. MR .

CHAIRM AN: Well, I recognized, I looked around and I passed and I signed it. MR. ADAM: We have just voted. MR . CHAIRM AN: All right, I'll recall it then. All right, go ahead. The Me mber for Ste. Rose. MR . ADA M: Yes, I was asking the Minister if he has had any complaints from the business community, the gun shops, the firearm shops, in regard to this legislation causing them loss of sales. And I would like to know, for the money that we have expended on this item last year, and what we have accomplished, how many firearms have been registered over the year and what is it costing us to do this?

And the other question that I had asked the Minister prev iously as to whether he has any reports that there are transactions taking place without the necessary permits being obtained? MR. ME R CIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we had information that transactions were taking place without permits, of course they would be required to take out the nece ssary per mits, if we had that specific information.

I have not really received any specific compla ints from deale rs because I think the dealers have recognized that they must bring, in one way or the other, for whatever reason, I think they have re cognized they should deal with the federal government, and as I understand it have been dealing with the federal governm ent, and have been corresponding, I take it, with the federal govern ment. Certainly we detect some comm ents and some areas of opposition to some of the provisions of the legisla tion. MR.

AD AM: And the last question that I asked in regard to the number of registrations that have taken place since the program came into effect. MR. MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I can indicate to the membe r that up to September 30th of 1979 - and this would be on a provincial basis outside of the city of Winnipeg - that the revenue up until then was $81 ,000 from 624 business per mits and approximately 7, 250 firearm acquisition certificates. MR . CHAIR MA N: The Me mber for St. Vital. MR. WA LDING: Before we leave this appropriation, Mr.

Chairman, I would li ke to ask the Minister how many vacancies there are under this appropriation? MR . ME RCIE R: None. Mr. Cooper and two secretaries, and they are all filled. MR . CHAIR MA N: l. (d) ... The Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR . BOY CE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As long as I occupy a seat in the Legislative Assembl y of the Province of Manitoba, I will discharge my responsibility to the electorate as I understand it. And I am certainly not going to sit here to be intimidated by people being able to muster more or louder voices.

According to the Rules I am entitled at any particular time to speak for 20 minutes should I have some thing to say relative to this particular item. - 437 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 We were asked to vote, and the total of the two items - $4 6,0 00.00 . For heaven knows what! I ge t questions from constituents about the gun control law, how it is working, is it any good, are all guns being re gistered, is it accomplishing what we want, and under our organization, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of this govern ment and the Attor ney-General to advise the citizens of Manitoba, in his opinion and in the opinion of his govern ment , not what the federal governme nt thinks about it, but what he thinks after 14 months of experience with this particular law.

As a membe r of this Comm ittee to sit here and ask a question and be told that is as far as I am going to get, I don't know if the Attorn ey-Gen eral realizes it, Mr. Chairman, but who he is telling that to is the 19 some thousand people who live in Winnipeg Centre, and I don't think that answer it good enough. Be that as it may, the government will use its majority to pass this item.

But I want it on the record that who the Attorney-Gen eral is telling that that is as far they are going to go in having the expression of the opinion of this government in representing them in federal- provincial negotiations on this item, that the obvious arrogance of the govern ment once again shows through in it. People wonder why I am a little short-te mpered at this type of attitude. I went through several meetings in the past several months on Bills 22 and 23 where the same attitude prevailed.

And I want the rec ord to show, and show in an underlined way, that this govern ment feels no responsibility or no accountability to the people who elected them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIR MAN: The Member for Gladston e. MR. FER GUSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we really do have a tempest in the teapot here. In the first place we are dealing with federal legislation imposed on us by a fellow by the name of Trudeau and his gover nment.

It's now necessary in the Province of Manitoba, whether or not many of these people are standing up so righteously for it or know what they are talking about or whether they don't, but it costs you $10 to buy a per mit to have any dealings whatever with any kind of a firearm . You also may be prosecuted if you loan or do anything with a firear m. Now to me the whole thing to start with was a bunch of damned nonsense. I think pretty near everyone around this table that has anything to do with hunting or anything else. We're dealing with tw o things.

Number one would be sports weapons, the second would be weapons that you would use for other purposes and if you think for one second anyone of us sitting around this table that any gun law restriction is going to impose any restriction on anyone want ing to obtain firearms, there probably are three machine shops in the City of Winnipeg that can be producing firearms inside of 24 hours. Or they can be imported or they can be bought from anywhere.

So basically, I don't really think that we have a great big thing here, and to start demanding from the Attorney-Gene ral - he comes up with a statement of what our stand is. Our stand in the first pl ace - or at least mine wo uld be - would be that it was a bunch of damned nonsense, be cause it's unenforceable. That would be number one. Number two would be that it's another restriction, another bureaucratic control on the sports hunters and the people of this country that do still have the freedom to carry we apons and want to go out for sport hunting.

They're not going to go down and rob a bank, and anybody that wants to has no problem getting their hands on a gun. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Me mber for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BOY CE: I want to thank the Me mber for his expression of his opinion. appreciate it because, Mr . Chairman, I don't know a damn thing about it. I don't. And this is the place where we are supposed to have things out so we can share opinions and come to grips with some of these things. I don't know what's good, bad, or indifferent.

I rec all conversations with the membe r be fore it was passed, and I accepted his assessment of it because what he said just a moment ago made em inent good sense. But ne vertheless, surely to heavens a govern ment after 14 months has a govern ment position vis-a-vis this question, and this is what I was pressing the Attorney-General to share with us. Because I wasn't going to criticize him one whit. All I wanted to know was if they we re in a position to tell the people of Manitoba whether the darn thing was any good or we should scrap it, or modify it or what. And I couldn't even get that. - 43 8-

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR . CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR . ME RC IER: Well, Mr . Chairman, I indicated to the mem ber that after six or eight months operation, when we met with the Solicito r-General, we'd had very little experience with it. I indicated we were prepared to be an active participant in an assessment of the program. Obviously, the law enforcement authorities, from what I understand, feel that a number of very dangerous weapons were taken out of the hands of the public at the beginning of the program when there was an opportunity to turn those kinds of we apons in.

There is a question that makes it worthy of being assessed. Obviously, I take it, one of the prime motives in developing the legislation was to keep guns out of the hands of people who we re li kely to be involved in their illegal use; people who had mental health problems. That's one of the questions on the form. The appli cant is asked apparen tly to indicate whether he has had any mental health problems. If he's the kind of person that's had them and wants to use the gun for an illegal purpose, he's probably not going to admit to it. So is the application of any us eful value?

I say th e program is worth an assessment for those reasons, and for many of the reasons that the Membe r for Gladstone raises. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Membe r for Minnedosa. MR . DAV ID BLAKE : Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I wasn't here at the start of the debate. I don't know what has gone on. I assume the question is questioning the expenditure of the amount of money under review for the Gun Control Progra m.

I, as a citizen, as a hunter and a gun owner, thought the legislation, as the Me mber for Gladstone said, was forced upon us by the federal authorities and we have no way to control it whatsoever. I think it wa s a lot of damn nonsense. I think the program is absolutely ridiculous. I don't disagree with the control of those we apons that can be used for insurrection or riot, such as sub-machine guns, things of that nature. But ga ming firepieces such as I am sure all of us here own, and those of us that have families, it's an absolutely ridiculous law.

There's no way you can enforce it and there's no way it should be enforced. I have two sons that hunt with me. We each have our own shotguns and we have one or two other guns as well. And if you are accustomed to hunting in the conditions that we hunt with in our area, there's a danger of one of your guns becoming inoperative through dust in a goose pit or dropping it in a marsh or whatever. If it happens in a goose pit and those of you that have dug goose pits will know what it's all about.

When you spend that time to dig a goose pit, you want to make damn sure you get some action out of it afterwards or it's a terrible eff ort wasted. But if that fowling piece becomes inoperative, there is no way you can say, well run back to the car, son, and get my second gun and use it because if you get caught coming out of the field by a game guardian or peace officer, you're in troubl e. You haven't got a $10 per mit from your father to lend that gun to your son or vice versa, and the thing is damn ridiculous. There is no question about it, Mr. Chairman.

And rm sorry that I wasn't in at the start of it to see just what the debate was about but, I have opposed this gun law right from the start, other than the fact that I don't object to taking pieces out of the hands of peopl e that could cause riot problems such as Thompson machine guns, mortar pieces and things of this nature. But the whole bill, that is a federal bill, thrust upon us that we have no control over - and you can't bl ame that on the Attorney-Gen eral.

He is trying to go along with a bad piece of le gislation foisted on us by the federal government, trying to make something out of it, and I don't know how you can just ge t rid of it like that. I would be in favour of it, but put yourself in his position where you just can't get rid of it like that. And you just have to go along and make the best piece out of it. MR. CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Me mber for Minn edosa. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I am listening to my leftist friends on the left telling me why didn't you get rid of it on the 18 th.

Listen, that Clark government didn't have time to ge t rid of all the proble ms that he inherited. He got rid of a bunch of them and now you're right back in them again and you'll see that when you start paying $1 .80 for gas by next Christmas. You'll realize that Joe Clark was right to start wit h, and he would have got around to this gun law in time but he just didn't have time in seven months. Mr. Chairman, I think the law is a bad law that's been thrust upon this govern ment by the federal authorities, and there's really no easy way we can get out of it. I would encourage the - 43 9 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 Minister to get out of it as qu ick as he can and bring a sensible gun law in but it's not an easy thing to do. I would object to the gun laws right from the start, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to make my views known because I know I'm speaking for my constituents when I state those views. MR . CHAIRM AN: l. (d)(2)-pass; Resolution 16, 2.(a)(l)-pass. The Me mber for Wol seley . MR .

WILSON: I wondered if the Minister could explain areas in which the government would get into litig ation other than the more famous ones, and the thing I wanted to ask him, is there anywhere in the public accounts or anything where we could get a breakdown of the CFI leg al fees? I understand, according to your press release, that the leg al fees we re $1 ,650,000, and I wondered if there would be anywhere in public accounts that we could have the names of the law firms that rece ived this large wind fall in the Province of Manitoba? MR. MER CIER: I suppose that would be in public accounts from year to year. MR.

WIIBON : Would it be necessary for a membe r to file an Order for Return to get this inform ation? MR . ME R CIER: No, if mem bers of the committee req uest it. We've tried to keep it up to date in the past , and we could probably fairly quickly provide you with that information. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Member for lnkster. MR . SIDNE Y GRE EN : Just for the assistance of my membe r, to help him, I am al most certain - the department can check me out, that there was an Order for Return up to a certain time.

I'm alm ost certain that in the mid-'70s there was an Order for Return which showed that Ri chardson and Company had received a certain amount of money up to a certain time, and I'm not sure about Gallagher and Company. But if it could go from that date forward, that might save some time. MR . WILSON: I know how to get that information now. The question I wanted to ask is, the first question, I was looking to get some sort of idea how we would participate and cost the taxpayer $777 ,300 for civil litig ation.

I real ize that a lot of that would be salar ies. rd li ke the type of case, and last year on May 8th, the Me mber for Wellington and myself had asked a question regarding the moonlighting by mem bers of the Attorney-General's staff, and I wond ered if that would come under civil litiga tion? Were they doing other civil litig ation other than working for the government, and has it ceased? MR. MERC IER: Mr. Chairman, when the me mber refers to the total am ount shown under civil litigation, there are 29 staff man years in that amount, of which salar ies amount to $72 2,000.00.

So that amount is basically made up of salaries of people on staff within the Civil Litigation Department. MR. WILSON: What I was trying to arrive at for my own information is the type of things that the govern ment would get involved in. It says civil litig ation. I'd li ke to sort of be given a broad brush of what that would mean. How would the province, give me some examp les of how the province would get involved in civil litig ation? Would it mainly be as a defend ant, or would it sometimes be as a plainti ff? MR. MER CIER: Mainl y , Mr.

Chairman, repre senting provincial govern ment departments, corporations, commissions, boards, and agencies. Generally, every department has a lawyer from the Civil Litigation Department gen erally assigned to giving advice to each department or board. MR . WILSON : Wi th the help of the Me mber for River Heights, he sort of indicated to me, would the type of thing that one of the school divisions in a faulty architectural design would come to, 0t1r gover nment to use our ... in other words, our staff lawyers would be trying to recover money for the taxpayers for faulty design and that type of thing. - 440 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR . MERC IER: Yes, that's one example. MR . WILSON: wondered if the Minister wanted to comment on that moonlig hting-aspect story. Was that just sort of some thing that was over-exaggera ted by the Me mber for Wellington, or is it stil l a practice? MR . ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman , we dealt with that matter last year and guidelines were issued to lawy ers on staff with the govern ment that they are not, basically , to do any private legal work which interferes with their job. Their job is considered to be not just a 9 to 5 job, but required to work evenings and we ek-ends when nece ssary.

MR. CH AIRMA N: The Me mber for Wellington. MR . BRIAN CORRIN: To that point, Mr. Chairman, as I told the Attorney- General last year, it was well-docu mented that people were indeed doing wo rk that had nothing to do with rel atives, and was indeed for remun eration in pay. I know for a fact that the people I was aware of have discontinued the practice. I presume that was as a result of a directive that circulated through the department.

But it was we ll known that these people we re doing this sort of activity during wo rking hours, and I think that it behooves the Attorney-General to, at the very best, remain mute, stand silent on the point, not to suggest that there was no impropriety. There indeed were people who were doing this and I can provide him facts, figures, names - I think I did this last year. But bygones are bygones, that was last year and one presumes that things have improved this year. MR . CHAI RMAN: 2.(a)--pass. MR . GAR Y FILM ON (River Heights): I was going to ask, if I may, Mr .

Chairman, if that's a condition of their emp loyment? MR . ME RC IER: Instructions from the department. MR. CH AIRMAN: 2.(a)(l) --pass; 2.(a)(2)--pass; 2.(b)(l ). The Me mber for Wellington. MR. CORR IN: I would like to ask the Minister's advice respecting a matter which I beli eve may be quite widespread in the province, and which has come to my attention through my own practice of law. In 1978 , I had occasion to represent a Man itoba citizen who was charged with five counts of driving while disqualified.

He was sentenced to three months imprisonment on each charge and the Judge, in his wisdom, deter mined that those sentences should run concurren tly - at the same time. I rece ived instructions from the accused to launch a sentence appeal, and I did so on his behalf on October 18, 1978 and at that time a Winnipeg County Court judge granted interim judicial release of bail and my client was at liberty. Now the point of the story, Mr.

Chairman, is that this individual was released from prison some time be fore the expiration of his sentence, and has ne ver come before the courts for an appeal subsequent to that bail appl ication. Some time transpired as between the actual conviction, the sentence appeal and now, as I said 1978 to 19 80, and it seems to me that was pretty easy. It seemed to me that was rather inconsistent with an efficient justice system. I phoned around this month. I started to phone around because I hadn't heard from anybody in the Attorney-Gene ral's department and frankly I wanted to proceed with the appeal.

We we re sort of getting tired of waiting. My client has obtained new emp loyment. His whole life style has changed since the date of his conviction, and he wishes to have the matter disposed of. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, whether there is any way that the Minister's office monitors the progress of these sorts of proceedings.

I know this afternoon we talked about the new computerized systems that were being installed at a cost of approximately $1 00,000 this year, but I am wondering whether or not anybody tries to update releases because it occurred to me that if my client could do this, surely this might be quite a wide spread pr actice. I was somewhat concerned and I wrote to Mr. A. H.

Carruthers, who is the superintendent of the Headingley Correctional Institution because there was some confusion about the accused's status, and he advised that the only thing he knew about the case was that in October 1978 the incarcerated prisoner was transferred to the Public Safety Building. That's - 44 1 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 all he knew - on the day of his bail appl ication, he wa s transferred to the Public Safety Building by a Sherriff's Officer and the institution had no further knowlege of what happened to him. The rec ord shows simply and I am quoting, "the rec ord shows simply he did not return to complete his term. Perhaps the Public Safety Building could advise you of any events that took place on or after October 18, 19 78 ." So the superintendent of the correctional institution doesn't know what happened to his inmate. The crown attorney seems to be nonplussed.

I just wonder whether this is a wide-spread sort of thing. I might add that I think it's rather unfair that the appellant accused even be fore put to the bother of going for his appeal so many years after the event, but I am wondering if you could comme nt on what sort of systems have been devised. Perha ps one of those re ports that was ordered, perhaps the Knox, what is it? I get them all mixed up because they're all the name s of various - it was the Knox Report and then there was the Hall-Pilkey Report and then there was the Gyles Report and there was the first one, the Norton-Philco Report.

I am wondering if any of those four reporters, or groups of reporters, comm ented on this practice and whether they had any remedial proposals that they tendered to the Minister. MR. CHAIR MA N: The Honourable Minister. MR . MERC IER: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of anything like this ever happening while I have been in the department. If the membe r would be so kind enough as to give me or someone within my department, here tonight, the name of his cl ient, well I'm sure we'll be very happy that his lawyer brought this matter to my attention. I can assure you that the matter will be dealt with expeditiously. MR.

CORRIN: Well I should hope so. On that point, on February 26 , I wrote to the the Honourable Minister and demanded that the matter be put on at the next arraignm ent so that we could effect a disposition. My client is entitled, I believe, to have a disposition. You know, otherwise he could be at work ten years from now and two poli cemen could walk into the premises and pull him out and say that he belonged in the Headingley Correctional Insititution, not at his job. So I quite agree, Mr.

Chairman, that it's only proper that he have his day in court and have his appeal and the judge hear the circumstances of the case and consider his present circumstances. MR. ME RC IER: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the mem ber could indicate whether he has discussed this with the crown attorneys. MR. CORRIN: Of course. MR. MER CIER: You have brought this matter to their attention? MR . CORR IN: Yes. They told me to go look, they told me to contact the superintendent and see whether he had any rec ord of the prisoner. That was one of the things they suggested I do, so I did. I am always one to take advice.

And they also suggested I look in the pocket at the Prothonotary's Office in Queen's Bench to see whether they had any record of the bail appeal. I knew there was a bail and an appeal motion made because I was there. There is no question about that. MR . CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Minister. MR . MER CIER: Who was the Crown Attorney? MR .

CORRI N: Well, foll owing - I'll disclose that to you in private because, follow ing last year's precedent with respect to moonlighting attorneys, we weren't going to name names and I'm going to treat that in high confidence, so I'll disclose that to the Minister in private after wards. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Minister of Agr iculture. - 442 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 MR . DOWN E Y: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question. Are we here to debate the specific case that the membe r is bringing be fore this committee or are we here to do Estimates for the Attorney-General's departm ent? MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . PAW LE Y: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just raise another area with the Attorney-General, and first I want to express appreciation to the Attorney- General for looking into this case originally when I brought it to his attention, and I know the limit ations that he faced.

But I would hope that some procedure could be developed in order to prevent this happening within criminal prosecutions and that is - the Attor ney-General's me mory, I am sure, would be re freshed when I mention the details involving a conviction pertaining to a traffic offence, a fine of $300, non-payment of that fine within the three month period, the chap in question having three chil dren ages one, two and three and being unemplo yed sought welfare, and as a result of seeking welfare found himself turned over to the police and was comm itted to 30 days in jail for non-payment of the fine.

At the same time he was comm itted for 30 days he was awaiting a job interview, which meant that he would be not available for the job interview until such time as a release could be arranged for hi m from Headingley Jail. Now I know in this particular case that the ans wer is that the individual in question should have sought an extension of time in order for him to pay his fine, rather than to be jailed for a 30-day period. But you know, Mr .

Chairman, many are not aware that they can make such an application for an extension of fine, and --(Interjection)-- he had a lawyer at the trial, but certainly afterward didn' t seek legal opinion. Mr. Chairman, if I could just pursue this because this sort of situation, rm concerned as to how frequent these type of situations are.

Because I would hope that we could avoid imprison ment, I don't know, I suppose it's happened at scattered times throughout the last number of years, I don't think it's a matter involving the present govern ment or previous governm ent , but when it comes to - I had alw ays understood that we were avoiding imprisonment of non-payment of fines perta ining to traffic and li quor offences.

And I would hope that some procedure could be developed within the department in order to ensure that be fore a comm itment is made in a case such as this, that an extension could be arranged, because in this particular case, I know that the convicted was unaware at the time that he could apply for an extension, could have gotten an extension, all he knew there was a deadline, he was picked up, and the result is 30 days in prison, with the cost that that means imposed upon the taxpayers in general, the person probably jeopardized from obta ining employment, wife and three youngsters having to draw welfare during the period of time that the person is in jail for the non-payment of the other time.

So my qu estion reall y, to the Attorney-General is, could this be review ed? rm not expecting the Attorney-Gen eral to come out with some specific me thods, but I don't think it's just enough to indicate that he could have obtained an extension of time to pay.

We know that, but some way or other there should be some me thod by which, when this happens, a person is made aware that they can immediatly make an appl ication, that there's just reason such as there was in this case for being ... he wasn't wil fully defying the payment of the fine, that additional time be given to avoid this type of unfortunate situation from occurring.

In this particular case, I accept and I comme nd the Attorney-Gen eral for looking into it and doing what he could but under the circumstances, he wasn't able to do more, but I would hope that this could be avoided in the future, so that this type of occurrence doesn't happen to others from time to time. I just would appreciate the Attorney-General's response. MR . MERC IER: Mr.

Chairman, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, he raised this matter with me, and it was looked into immediately, and as he has indicated, the accused in this particula r case, I'm quite sure, would have been granted an extension, positive he would have been granted an extension if he had just brought the matter to the attention of the court prior to the warrant being issued for his arrest . But unfortunately, once the warrant was issued, we could do nothing. I suppose the difficulty is there are so many of these orders for payment, and it must be a massive thing to deal with.

I suppose we could look at the form that an accused must receive and see if there could be something written on the form that might indicate, or inform people of a right to apply for an extension, depending upon their financial circumstances. Mr. Chairman, we can have a look at that and see if there is any possibility of improving the notice of that to a person who is ordered to pay a fine and in default , a jail sentence. - 443 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR . PA WL EY : I appreciate the Attorney-Gene ral's response, and certainly I believe that what we must attempt to minimize is those instances where people are in prison for non-payment of fines, traffic, or liquor, having nothing to do with wilful defiance on their part , but simply being financially unable to pay the fine, and I appreciate and want to thank the Attorney-General for his commitment to look into ways and means to ensure that such occurrences are eli minated from within the system. MR. WILSON : Under Cr iminal Pr osecutions, Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to possibly convey to the Attorney-Gen eral whether he shares the thinking of Francis Fox, the former Solicitor Gene ral that he doesn't want to become involved in the day-to-day operations of the criminal prosecution division in the police force for fear that the thing might become a politic al police force.

My concern is what I call the possible suggested unfairness where any citizen could get charged with perjury if he says anything fals e, and where lawye rs seem to be able to have what we call leaks to the press, because what it means is that by, if you give this lati tude to your staff, or latitude to these type of career-seeking low lif e lawye rs that some people have around, that, -(Interje ction)- well, rm explaining it this way to the Me mber for St. Vital - I was personally involved where we had sought to have a ban on publication, but before we even went to court, Mr.

John Bertrand of the Tribune had printed it in the front page of the Tribune, and the reason we we re seeking the ban on publication was because lawyers connected either directly or indirectly with the provincial work were involved in perjury and giving false information, an absolute - a very tenuous situation where the situation was such that it was alleged by a chap by the name Mc Farlane that I was head of a Spartan Motorcycle Gang.

And these are the types of things, it was felt through my lawyer and myself, that should not be for the ears of my eleven-year old daughter or my elderly mother because we knew that they had no basis in fact so we we re hoping to be able to have a pan on publication. But for some reason or other, and it's not the first time rve seen it, I wond ered if the Minister could comme nt , does he have any guidelin es of which membe rs of his staff are not all owed to give the press stories befoae they even go to the Court Room? MR . PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman, just on a point of order, I would hope that the Attorney-General would very seriously reflect be fore he would engage himself in answers to the questions from the Member for Wolseley, I think under all the circumstances. MR. WILSON: Then maybe ru say this. It says, "perjury, anyone who comm its perjury who have been a witness in a judicial proceeding with intent to mislead , gives false evidence, know ing that the evidence is fals e.

" What I am saying is, could the province not consider ame nding the laws of Manitoba so that membe rs of the le gal profession should als o be subject to perjury the same as the citizens of Manitoba are? MR . CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for Rossmere. The Honourable Minister. MR . MER CIER: Everyone in Manitoba is subject to the Cri minal Code, which includes the offence of perjury. MR .

WILSON: Regarding what I considered was the leaks to the press, during what I consider the law for Pilutik and the law for some other people in high places, police investigations are conducted for the benefit of the Crown and ought not to be handed out to others as a public service. This was a quote from Mr. Charles Huband in which he and the former Attor ney-General were discussing matters as to why the press could not get any information pertaining to this case, and I wondered why this doesn't apply.

In other words, I am asking the Attorney-General if I can come up with cases where things are leaked to the press prior to people being charged , would he look upon this as a serious matter, or would he consider it just normal day in and day out. What I am trying to say is, it seems to me that Mr . Bertrand and Mr. Pawn of the Free Press are beholding to the Crown prosecutors because they rely on them for stories, and I think it's terrible that these people would le ak stories without giving people their civil rights to be able to ask for a ban on publ ication.

I believe Engel and Friedman, I believe Peter Nygard, I believe Judge Martin and others have all had the privilege of having a ban on publi cation, and this is the thing that concerns me. - 444 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 MR . ME R CIER: Mr. Chairman , I just want to make a clarifi cation. A ban on publicati on is available on evidence at a preli minary inqu iry, not on a bail application or on a matter like that. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to comment on a federal government prosecution or the conduct of federal govern ment law yers who don't come within my control or jurisdiction of my department.

Certainly as a policy, rm certainly not aware of any instance where people em plo yed in a crim inal prosecutions department , as the me mber refers to, lea k evidence to the press in advance of any court proceeeding. MR.

WILSON : Well, then, wanting to be more specific, because I am concerned about future generations, and I re me mber the forme r Attorney-General, when judges' telep hones were tapped by mistake, expressed a great deal of concern and said it was done in error and it should ne ver have occurred, and I wondered why it had seemed to be treated so lightly that there was a suggestion that mem bers of the provincial gover nment may or may not have been wiretapped, and I wondered if we were in any le ss of a position of privilege, we as an elected body, than the judges who expressed alar m at the time the former Attorney-General made that mistake, or made that suggestion.

What I am basically getting at is, it seemed that in the questioning at that particular time, the forme r Attorney-General talked about a total of 18 wiretaps in the province. I wondered if the Attorney would be give some indications as to how many wiretaps there were within the province of Manitoba in the last fiscal year? MR. MER CIER: On the last point, Mr. Chairm an, a report is tabled in the Legislature each year and in the Manitoba Gazette with respect to that matter. MR . CHAIR MA N: The Me mber for Rossmere. MR .

VIC SCHROE D ER: I have a few questions of the Attorney-Gen eral with respect to the Dragan and Wong matter. MR . CHAIRMA N: I wonder if the mem bers would speak into the mike because right at this moment we can't really hear what the honourable membe r is saying. MR. SCHR OEDE R: Fine. My first question is, could you tell us what the date of arrival of the court party was, that is the date of arrival in Hong Kong? MR . MER CIER: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps I can also, at the same time, advise the Member for Rossmere that the membe rs of the commission authorized by an order of the Queen's Bench Judge were Judge Co nner as Commissioner, Mr. Dangerfield and Mr . Jacksteit of the Criminal Prosecutions Department, Miss Christie, a court reporter, three defence counsel, Mr . Houston, Mr. Maciver and Mr. Weinstein and three accused, for a total of ten, I belie ve. Mr. Jacksteit and Mr. Weinstein, the Judge and Miss Christie, all arrived in Hong Kong on the evening of February 7th. Mr . Houston and Mr . Maciver and Dr .

Dragan arrived on the 8th, and Dr. and Mrs. Wong arrived on the 9th of February . MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Me mber for Rossmere. MR . SCHROE D ER: Thank you, through you to the Minister, on what day did the hearings begin ? MR . MER CIER: There apparently was, Mr . Chairman, a calendar, I believe there was a wee kend and on the Monday the hearing was adjourned over some difficulty with certain witnesses and the Hearing Commission heard evidence on the 12 th, 13 th, 14 th, and 15t h of February. MR . SCHR OED ER: I take it that on the l lt h no witnesses showed althoug h there was a hearing scheduled. MR .

MER CIER: My advice is that the hearing wa s adjourned, Mr. Chairman, because of some difficulty with witnesses. - 445 -

Thursday , 6 March 198 0 MR . SCHR OED ER: Thank you. On the 13 th, is it correct that a witness showed up who informed the Comm ission that he was not prepared to testify and that he in fact did not testify ? MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I understand that a witness began his evidence on the 13t h, that the Comm ission was adjourned to allow him to consult a lawyer and when the Com mission reconvened the witness refused to give further evidence. MR . SCHROE D ER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.

Could the Minister then inform the Committee as to whether this Commission had jurisdiction, first of all, to compel witnesses to attend be fore it in Hong Kong and, secondly , if it had that power, did it have the power to compel witness es to testify , and if it had that power, why was it not exercised with respect to this witness? MR. MER CIER: Mr.

Chairm an, I am advised that there were no witnesses under subpoena as the power to subpoena does not exist outside of Canada, so that all the witnesses who testitifed and who were to testify did so voluntarily; and all witnesses who were na med in the Commission, and four witnesses who were found in Hong Kong on arrival there we re asked to appear and did appear. MR. SCHR OED ER: Yes. Did I understand correctly that there were four witnesses found in Hong Kong and there fore they we re asked to testify? MR . ME R CIER: All witness es appeared.

I said all witn esses named in the Comm ission appeared volunta rily , as did another four witnesses who were not named in the Commission appeared voluntarily. MR. SHROED ER: Yes. Then I recall some news reports that indicated that there were 28 witnesses to be interviewed in Hong Kong, did those 28 witnesses then show up, plus an additional four? MR . MER CIER: The figure I have of our proposed list of 24 , I am not sure whether the extra four who we re not named in the Commission we re over and above the 24, so 24 , 28, I can clarif y that later for the me mber if he wishes. MR .

SCHROE DE R: Yes, to the Attorney-General. How many witnesses testified at this Commission Hearing in Hong Kong? MR . ME RC IER: Nine, Mr. Chairman. MR . SCHR OED ER: Yes. The balance of the 24 or 28 then were not located I take it, is that correct ? MR . MER CIER: No, Mr.

Chairman, I just explained that all, at least 24 or 28 , witnesses voluntarily appeared and were pre pared to give evidence; nine witnesses were call ed, at which time I am advised that the failure of two key witnesses - one of whom, who after consulting his solicitor re fused to give evidence - at which time their failure to give the evidence expected, and the discovery apparently that another third witness could not give the evidence expected , lead to a decision at that time to cancel the hearings and the remaining witne sses were not called. MR. SCHR OED ER: Thank you.

Could the Attorney-General advise us as to whether any of the three defendants we re ever interviewed by the RC MP or any other poli ce officers or officers of his department ? MR . MER CIER: I do not have that information, Mr. Chairm an. MR . SCHROE D ER: Is it possible to obtain that information for us ? MR. MER CIER: Well, perha ps the me mber might explain what he is trying to accomplish. We have a situation where there is an investigation by the Commercial Fraud Squad of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The evidence is produced to the me mbers of - 446 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 the Prosecutions Department indicating, after study, reasonable grounds for the laying of charges. The decision of the Crown Attorneys, on the basis of their experience, and the two involved in this particular prosecution have been with the department for some time and have a great deal of experience, the charges are laid, the lawye rs are then faced with a decision as to whether to bring the witnesses, all of the witnesses, to Canada to give evidence or to go to Hong Kong to take the evidence.

It is determ ined that they can save 50 percent; the cost of going to Hong Kong is on e-half the cost of bringing the witnesses to Winnipeg to give evidence, if they would come. A judge of the Queen's Bench authorizes the Comm ission in Hong Kong to take the evidence. The Comm ission goes to Hong Kong.

All of the witnesses are available on a voluntary basis, nine people are cal led; one key witness, after consulting a solicitor, refuses to give evidence; two other apparently key witnesses don't give the evidence that was expected; and I am sure the lawye rs here will vouch that you ne ver are sure of what a witness will actually say until the examination takes place. In this particular case they didn't give the evidence that was expected.

The Crown Attorneys involved therefore, after considering it over the following we ekend made the decision to cancel the taking of any further evidence on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges, advised counsel for the accused and returned to Winnipeg where the matter was dealt with and disposed of today. Mr. Chairm an, I think that is a pretty full explanation of what occurred. Surely justice is not only served when the Prosecution Department obtains convictions.

If the facts are deter mined and the evidence determines there is no case against the accused, then surely justice says there should be an acquittal. That is what has happened. Now, Mr. Chairman, if th e Me mber for Rossmere can tell me what he is trying to accompli sh in this particular case perhaps we can make some progress. MR . SCHR OED ER: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. This case I think everyone would agree is somew hat unusual. We have here an allegation apparently of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud outside of the country.

We are talking about a substantial amount of money in a time when we are talking about cutbacks in social services all over the pl ace in this province; we are talking about the system of justice that is not, and never has been, perfect, a system of justice under which we frequently have decided, on the basis of cost, that certain cases will not be prosecuted.

I am fully aware, as I am sure the Attorney-General is, that on frequent occasions there are certain types of offenders who, when they leave the province for instance, have simple Manitoba warrants issued for them and not Canadawide warrants, because of the costs involved at bringing them back. Fre quently charges are dropped with respe ct to defendants in situations where witnesses leave the province and therefore we are unable to continue prosecutions.

And here we have a case where, although the numbers sound staggering - first of all I question the number required for a preliminary hearing, and we have to re membe r that that was the stage we we re at - we are talking about a situation where, as I understand it, the RC MP were in Hong Kong at least on several occasions interviewing people, and that surely , based on that, there should have been a very careful consideration given to the usefuln ess of getting on with it; and that is not taking into account some of the other unusual circumstances in this case, one of which is the fact that there we re two senior prosecutors who went to Hong Kong - and I suggest, Mr .

Attorney-General, that ordinarily in fraud cases or murder cases or ot hers one prosecutor usually handles a case; I suggest as well that ordinarly we don't send people some four or five days ahead of time half way around the world to a hearing, and I take it at public expense. I really beli eve that this type of hearing should be closely examined, the kind of spending by this department - now this department apparently has increased its spending by something like 60 percent since 1977. I was at a meeting tonight, Mr. Attorney-General, where we were talking about students in R.B.

Russell School who are facing clos ure of certain of their programs for next year, the eli mination of the Electr ical Repair Department for instance , because this government isn't paying enough money into the education system, and at the same time this type of case is being prosecuted without possibly, I am not saying that the safeguards weren' t met in the beginning but it may well be that the RC MP didn't do their job adequately in determining whether there was sufficient basis for continuing the prosecution.

After all the final end result has been that there was apparently no evidence, no evidence against these individuals , whom it has cost an awful lot of money. It has cost them an awful lot of aggravation and we have to assume that they we re innocent all along and they have been put through an awful lot, and therefore I do think that the questioning is relevant. I think that the taxpayers of this province have the right to hear these kinds of answers. - 447 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 MR . MER CIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Me mber for Rossmere made a number of comme nts, one of which pertained to the issuance of warr ants for accused persons out of the province and not attempting to execute those warrants until the person has returned to the province. The difference is that in this case the defendants resided within the province. This was a commercial fraud case, of course, Mr . Chairma n, and they're difficult cases and I think the membe r will realize that. They're very complicated cases.

I am concerned in a general way about the le ngth of time of investigations of comme rcial fraud cases; they seem to take quite long to be completed and it's due mainly to the very complicated aspects. I can only say and repeat, Mr .

Chairman, to the Me mber for Rossmere, that it was a case where two, and more than two, senior counsel in the comme rcial fraud part of the prosecution's department reviewed the evidence and the investigation reports from the RC MP , determ ined there we re reasonable grounds for laying the charges and the evidence that was expected did not come out and the accused were rightfully committed. Hindsight is great.

Obviously if we had known this at the beginning the prosecutor would ne ver have proceeded with the charges, but they were se nior people in the department and on the basis of the re ports they had proceeded with this particular prosecution. MR. DEPU TY CHAIR MA N: 2.(b)(l ). The Honourable Me mber for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: Yes, under this section, wondered what motivates the Attorney-Gen eral's staff pertaining to the appeals .

I have in front of me two appeals for we lf are fraud fines and I wondered why they would be appealing both of these, why they wouldn' t just appeal one and see how they make out and then appeal the second one; apparently there's a Mrs. Stevenson and a Mrs. Chartrand. I'll let the Minister answer but what motivates the Minister's staff not to appeal crimes of violence, cri mes against women and yet at the same time it seems to spend an aw ful lot of time on homosexual, prostitution crimes and welfare fraud fines?

In other words it's mindboggl ing to me, without having all the information in front of me, as to what guideline s your staff uses to launch appeals, in li ght of the fact that we have obviously some sort of crying ne ed for more develop ment of things that are going to keep our juvenile offenders from committing crim es; and I wondered why hasn't the governm ent staff been reprimanded for not catching this women. I mean it seems to me, do we no t have any training of our staff that would allow the welfare and social workers to not investigate these welfare frauds?

What I am saying is that there should be some onus, it sort of re minds me of the person that leaves the door open and there's six pieces of lemon pie on the table, I mean it's an invitation and I realize that these women have comm itted some form of - I guess maybe I'm asking what motivated them in this welfare payment thing to appeal these cases? MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe those two matters are probably both before the Court of Appeal and have not yet been dealt with. I point out to the mem ber that there's a time limit of 30 days for filing a Notice for Appeal.

It will sometimes happen that if there are two very similar cases it may be appealed or if one case is appealed and the second one is similar the first one might be appealed and dealt with first, and depending on how the first one is handled or disposed of the second might be proceeded with or abandoned. With respect to the me mber's concern about the discovery of fraud in the welfare department, I think that is a question more appropriately put to the Minister of that depar tment.

I can say to him that we have just, within this week, at the request of the Department of Co mm unity Services, assigned one lawyer to that departm ent to deal with all of the welfare fraud cases and to work with their department and to assist them in dealing with these matters and the evidence that comes out and what can be learned from these particular cases. MR. WILSON: Well I appreciate the Minister's answer because I, again as a layman, didn't know there was a 30 -day clause because it seemed odd that both of them were being appealed. I wanted to deal with an

article on Decembe r 8, by Mr . Jeff Gindin in which he claimed that the crown prosecutors in Mani toba lay overly severe ch arges in practically 90 percent of all the cases because there is such a thing called pl ea bargaining and I wondered - Mr. Gindin said the Crown will often lay attem pted murder charges knowing that it's sort of a pipe drea m - I wondered in light of the Minister's previous comme nts that every person who comm its perjury is guilty of an indictable offensive and is lia ble for an imprisonment of 14 years; and - 448 -

Thursday , 6 March 1980 also to the media, under the Cri minal Code of Defamatory Liable everyone who publishes a defamatory liable that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment of five years. I als o belong to an organization call ed the Canadian Association for the Pr evention of Crime and under

Section 3, they are going to str ive to eliminate games pl aying within the courtroom which might increase court efficiency and cause a great deal of taxpayer saving and money that may go towards social services that the Me mber for Rossmere seemed to be so concerned about. And they just wonder, this organization which I belong to, what games are going on , because it seems to me that if these Crown lawyers as this

article by Mr. Gindin says knowingly exagg erate, and how well I know because I had a phone call one day myself that told me I'd better get down to my lawyer, that the next day I was going to be charged with attempted murder and, lo and behold - I know you can't co mment on this, but for the rec ord - they fabricated some unbelie vable story , very tenuous and I'll be kind and say they were only tenuous, in more stronger terms they were absolute li es and they were able to accomplish what they accomplished by having a preferred indictment scored against me.

They had no intentions of laying an attempted murder charge against myself be cause it was an absolute fantasy. So not wanting the Minister to be put in a position to have to talk about this me mber but getting back to the story which I can relate to, I wondered if this is going to be a continued practice or does the Minister think that it's rather unfair to continually lay overly severe charges, or if he does, do it discreetly so that me mbers of his staff don't put articles such as Mr. Rosner has that cause a lot of people to become upset. MR. MER CIER: Well, Mr .

Chairman, I suppose there is always a difference of view •.. MR . DEP UTY CHAI RMAN: The Honourable Me mber for Well ington on a point of order. MR. CORR IN: I'm wondering at this point, Mr. Chairman, whether you'd like to make a ruling on whether it is proper in the circumstances for the Me mber for Wolseley to attemp t to gather evidence, gather information, receive responses, at this particular meeting and discussion, which are essentially all relative and relevant to charges now pending be fore the Court in his case. It seems to me that to do so allows him very special status and standing in the courts.

I don't know of many --{Interjection)- and I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, and the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral can respond and I think I'm re ally defending the Attorney-Gen eral's position. It appears to me, Mr.

Chairman, that this does indeed present an extraordinary opportunity in that no other accused before the courts could present questions to their chief prosecutor prior to pre-trial procedures and it would appear to me that this is a rather extraordinary situation and I am not sure one that the Attorney-General should be pla ced in; for him to have to comment on charges that his departme nt may have laid or may have thought of laying with respect to attempted murder.

And as they may relate to other charges now presenting be fore the courts it seems to me to be just an extraordinary situation and almost an abuse of the privileges of the House by the Me mber for Wolseley. I think that there'll be a time and a place for the disposition of his charges. He will have leg al counsel retained in order to assist him in presenting his case; they will have an opportunity to subpeona witnesses; they can even subpeona the Attorney-Gen eral to the trial. But for the Me mber to take this opportunity to present directly questions to the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral is simply extraordinary.

MR . DEPUTY CHAIRMA N: The Me mber for Wols eley on the same point of order. MR. WIISO N: Yes, I just wanted to say to the Member for Wellington. I sat there for a good six months watching mem bers of his profession very skillf ully feed the media story after story and I wrote six lett ers to the editor which were unprinte d. I wrote all kinds of things. I tried to present my case to the reporters and they all said that they cannot print anything because they'll be charged with contempt.

So how in the world on one side could you mem bers of the le gal profession feed the media story after story and then not expect me, because I wouldn't be in this position if I wasn't a po litician of being a nat ional story that appeared right across the country. I am talking about - I will refrain for the balance of the Minister's estimates in referring to myself but I will lay on the record some of the things that I can relate to. - 449 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 MR . DE PUTY CHAIRMAN: Order pleas e, order please. I would prefer some guidance in the matter. I wonder whether either me mber has a point of order in this case. The Honourable Minister, please. MR . MER CIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of comme nting or making any comm ents that might involve in any way the matter refe rred to by the Me mber for Wellington. I took this las t question to mean that the Membe r for Wolseley was referring to a new spaper

article and comm ents by Mr. Gindin, and I was going to make some comme nt about that in those comments, that's all. MR. DE PUTY CHAIRMA N: I'm going to rule that both points of order are not valid. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. Order pl ease, the Honourable Minister. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say, in response to the Me mber for Wolseley in the

article that he cited, that obviously defense counsel and the prosecutor sometimes have a different view of the evidence and that might account for some of the difference of opinion but there's no way that I or I'm sure my depa rtme nt would in any way condone deliberate laying of cha rges that exceeded the evidence that was within their knowlege. MR. DE PUTY CHAIRMA N: 2.(b)(l ). The Honourable Me mber for Wellington. MR . CORRIN: Yes on the point of plea bargaining, as between the crown and defense lawyers, Mr .

Chairman, Pm pleased that my friend the Me mber for Wolseley introduced that because I do think that it would be of some purpose for the Attorney- Gen eral to comme nt on departmental polic y relative to that matter. There has been some controversy as to whether or not it is departmen tal policy to pl ea bargain and of course as the Me mber for Wolseley has mentioned in that context there's been some contraversy as to whether it it a practice of the department to overcharge in order to effect favourable bargains.

Can the Minister make any comme nt on the formal polic y of the department, any directives that have been issued in that regard ? MR . DE PU TY CHAIRM AN: The Hon ourable Minister. MR . ME RC IER: What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, if the membe r will agree is attain for him and give to him a copy of the directive that has gone out to the dep artment with respect to that matter. MR . CORR IN: Mr.

Chairman, frankly since this is a public process I would prefer , and since it may lead to other questions and we don't want to unduly protract or delay the Estimates proceedings, I would prefer just to hear it extemporane ously. I don't care to hear all the details, just the gen eral gist would be more than sufficient. MR . MER CIER: Well, I will have that available for the mem ber in the morning and I certainly have no objection, if we happen to complete this Item, to returning to it or discussing it later on if he has any concerns about the directive. MR . CORRIN: Well, I don't understand the difficultly.

Surely it is just a question of whether or not the department condones the laying of more severe charges than are warranted by the evidence, and the only other point would be whether or not the attorney s in the Crown Department are all owed the latitude of bargaining or whether they are instructed to proceed to trial. There doesn't seem to be much more to it. It's just a yes or a no to either question. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I think I've already answered the first question put by the me mber, and the answer is, no. With respect to charges or overcharging, as I guess he referred to it.

Secondly, any discussions that take pl ace between a Crown Attorney and Defecce counsel are based on the evidence, with the clear understanding that sentencing is a function of the courts. - 450 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 MR . CORRIN: So on that point, Mr. Chairman, then, I take it that the Minister is refuting the statements made by mem bers of his department. The

article re ferred to by the Me mber for Wolseley, I happen to have a copy of it with me this evening as well, and the

article cites statements by two former senior attorneys in the Minister's department, Crown Counsel were Hymie Weinstein and Rocky Pollock, both, rm sure, well known to the department. Mr. Weinstein - and I think we're just quoting what he says, reading from the article, it says, "F orme r Crown counsel Hymie Weinstein said that while overcharging isn't a stated or consistent policy of the Attorney-General's Department, it does occur.

He said that when ever he was confronted with a case in which several different charges could be lai d, he would alwa ys lay th e most serious charge." And this is a direct quote from Mr . Weinstein. When in doubt, go with the higher charge. It's easier later to come down than to go up. Weinstein went on to say that this wasn't re ally overcharging, but rather just playing it safe from the Crown's viewpoint. He said that there is no question that such a decision would give a Crown a better hand in plea bargaining.

Then Pollock, who also worked for four years for the department - I think he left a couple of years, two, three years back - he said that overcharging of accused is part of the system and practised by some Crowns more than others. He says, and this is a quote, "There is no question that the police overcharge." I'm quoting again, Pollock said "he knew of a case which the Crown realized he couldn't prove, so he offered an incredible plea bargain in return for a guilty pl ea. The accused agreed and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

Afterw ards" - and this is a quote - "Afterwa rds the Crown Attorney jumped up and down laugh ingly, telling the defence lawyer that there was no way he could have proved the case in the first pl ace." I am wondering, in view of those statements made by what were fairly senior me mbers of your department, I would ask the Minister to provide us with his position on the propriety of that sort of situation.

I have alw ays taken the position - and rm sure that the Attorney-Gen eral has as well - that the Minister, in his capacity as Attorney-Gen eral and chief law enforcer of the province, is a neutral factor in the sense that he represents the interests of all people be fore the courts, not just the police and the prosecution but also the accused and the defence. He isn't there to deter mine or arbitrate guilt, that's a judge's job, but rather just to place information be fore a judge in the best possible way and most efficient manner, in order that all the facts come to lif e and justice can be served.

I'm wondering though, if we have Crown who make plea bargains with accused who otherwise would have been acquitted, I wonder if that's really justice. I really question whether that sort of activity is proper, and I'm wondering if the Attorney-Gen eral could make a comme nt on that. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, first of all , Mr . Weinstein and Mr . Pollock, as much as respect them, we re not membe rs of my department. They were membe rs of the forme r Attorney-General's Depar tment. With respect to the quotations that he ha s read out, certainly particularly from Mr.

Weinstein, it would appear to me, I get the implic ation from those statements that the charges that were laid were in conformity with the evidence that he had produced be fore him. With respect to the last comment of the Membe r for Well ington, it would seem to me that if a Crown Attor ney, having all the evidence before him, on the basis of which he kn ows an accused cannot be convicted, he has an obligation to make that known to counsel for the accused and in those circumstances an accused should be acquitted. MR . CORRIN : Mr.

Chairman, in response to that, I would wonder whether the Attorney-General would agree to me that from purely a justice point of view it's questionable whether people' s li ves and li berties should be put up at the bargaining tabl e, and that sort of scenario. rm wondering whether the Attorney-General believes that it is a proper method of justice adm inistration to have people stake their li berties al most in the manner of a crap ga me, and rm wondering whether or not we mightn't agree that plea barga ining, alth ough it is a practice, might we ll be condemned as being deplorab le, and in this regard, Mr.

Chairman, through you, I remind the Attorney-Gen eral that the Manitoba Court of Appeal, I believe last year, had some very strong rem arks to make about Crown Attorneys' and defence attorneys' practices in the course of bargaining pl eas. I believe that Mr . Justice Hall, or Mr. Justice Monin, one of the two, roundly condemned the practice as it now exists, and suggested that it had taken a disproportionate pl ace in the - 45 1 -

Thursday , 6 March 19 80 syste m, that effectively counsel were supplanting the role of the judiciary in attemp ting to negotiate dispositions of their cases, rather than presenting them to the courts for adjudication. And in view of the rem arks made by Messrs. Pollock and Weinstein, it seems to me that there is some credence to the Court of Appeal's position.

I would ask whet her the Mini ster feels that it 's appropriate, in view of the Court of Appeal's directive and these statements, not to issue some sort of stern directive rebuking the practice, and if no t so, I wonder whether or not the Attorne y-General could have at least assure me that he would prefer that only senior counsel be allowed to involve thems elves in the practice.

On e of the things that the Court of Appeal brought to light was that many junior counsel we re making a heck of a mess of plea bargaining in the sense that they we ren't very experienced and we ren't able of evaluating the evidence on their plates, and were really playing Russian roulette wit h people's rights and li berties. And that to me seems a fairly substantive point, Mr. Chair man.

It seems to me that if there is going to be plea bargaining condoned by the department and by the Honourable Minister that it should at least be sharply proscribed in order to assure me mbers of the public that they will be accorded all their rights; that they won't fall prey to the current syste m again. I was wondering if the Attorn ey-Gen eral would like to comment on that. MR. ME RCIE R: Well, Mr. Chairman, plea bargaining is a bad name or a bad description for what really takes place and what is really allowed.

There is nothing wrong, in my view, from a discussion taking place between a Crown Attorney and the counsel for the accused on the evidence; and that is a Crown disclosing evidence and the Defense Counsel indicating their view of the evidence, or the evidence available to them, and on the basis of the evidence agreeing that the evidence only involves a certain charge; and on that basis a plea of guilty being entered. With respect to junior counsel, they have been instructed in these matters, to consult wi th their superiors. MR . CORRIN: Mr.

Chair man, I think the Attor ney-General and I would agree that it 's best to call a spade a spade. And I think we are both aw are that there are powerful reasons why accused persons are inclined to accept plea bargaining, the best in my experience being the fact that many accused persons are not able to ei ther raise the bail nece ssary to obtain their inte rim release pending trial, and others of course are no t allow ed out of custody.

Just yest erday there was a report in the new spaper that a man somewhe re in the province had been held five months - incarcerated five months - pending the determin ation of his case. He was sentenced to two days in jail. The Judge couldn't - althoug h he was found guilty; I think he entered a guilty plea as a matter of fact, after five month s and this is not uncom mon, Mr. Chairman - the Judge just shook his head and didn't know what to do.

Notw ithstanding th e protestations that the backlog has now been brought under control and the si tuation is ame li orated, I think the real truth is that there are still many accused persons in this province who are langu ishing in cells awaiting their hearings, and that's a damned good induce ment to enter into a plea bargain. After you've sat a few months in the pokey you're damned ready to enter a plea to vir tually anyth ing. Now if you've been overcharged, it see ms to me that it' s natu rally inclined and weighted in the favour of the Crown Attorn ey's office.

In view of that and in view of the fact that that still goes on, it seems to me that the only way that we can ame lio rate these people's posi tions is of course to speed up the disposition of their hearings and also strongly prescribe the position of Crown Attorney to bargain pleas wit h Defence Counsel.

I'm wondering whet her the Honourable Attorney-G eneral wouldn't agree wit h me that th ere is fantastic le verage situated in the position of the Crown Attorney when an accused person is not all owed out of custody pending determ ination of hi s case; and if he does, does he think that it's fair that plea bargaining should be a part of the system, or does he think that it's fair that people should wait five months to have their case deter mined in jail?

Does he think that it' s unreasonable that people should not be induced to make deals wit h the Crown that aren't necessarily consistent wi th true and natural justi ce ? MR . ME RCIE R: Mr. Chairman, the practice in the depart ment on custody cases is to atte mpt to bring those cases on as quickly as possible and to give them priority. The Membe r for Wellington again re fers to plea bargaining. I've attem pted to explain to - 452 -

Thursday , 6 March 19 80 him what are the instructions in the department. I can only say that I hope what he refers to, doesn't happen. If he has the specific cases to refer to, he could bring those forward to me privately if he wishes and they will be dealt with. MR . COR RIN: Yes, in this regard, I think als o we might explore the practice, Mr. Chairman, of police having the conduct of the laying of charges. Recently there was a case involving a very well known Winnipeg personality, Mr. Bill Guest. It received quite a good deal of publicity.

And I believe that it was deter mined that the police ha d rem oved the charges from the senior Crown Attorney's office and had somehow managed to put the matter on the docket without the approval or recommendation of the De partmental Attorney. So Mr. Guest found himself in the terr ible predicament of facing charges and all the publicity that entailed, without any me mber of the Minister's department having actually endorsed the case for prosecution. And I'm wondering if the Minister could indicate to us how frequently this particular situation arises, and whether or not it is now under control. MR .

MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, we have emphasized that the responsibility for the laying of charges lies with the Crown attorneys, and that responsibility is being re-e mphasized with docket Crown attorneys. Presently, the Crown attorneys in charge of the docket courts are able to review most of the files at least one day prior to the court appearance of the accused, to give him an opportunity to review the charges proposed by the poli ce, to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify any charges being laid.

With regard to persons arrested over night, the Crown Attorneys review the matters each morning, and if nece ssary, stand them over until the afternoon to review the police reports in respect of the charges that are before the courts. We are attempting to deal with that. There's no question where the responsibility lies. MR . CORRIN: Yes, in this regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to also discuss the Juvenile Justice Committee Report tabled by Chief Provincial Judge Gyles several months ago.

Judge Gyles, in making his report after the inquiry's co mpletion, at page 29 cites what he termed a deplorable situation in rural areas. The committee discovered that in rural Manitoba ... MR . MER CIER: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. It's not a point of order but I wonder, Mr . Chairman, if the Me mber for Wellington is going to em bark on another area, and L .• MR . CORR IN : It's the same point. MR. MER CIER: I understand the me mbers of the committee are inclined to a motion to rise. MR . CORRIN: Oh, well, rn just ...

If I might be all owed the latitude, it's the same point and then we'll be finished that point for this year. Judge Gyles mentions that in the rural areas matters involving juveniles are referred to probation officers, who instruct the poli ce on the laying of the charges. And I'm quoting, he says, "Wi th respect to the relationship betwe en probation, Crown and police, it wo uld appear that the Crown and the police are dissatisfied." That includes membe rs of your departme nt. "Dissatisfied with the manner in whic h juveniles are handled in the rural areas.

Both the poli ce and the Crown question the role of the probation officer in authorizing charges. There is a direct conflict in the role pl ayed by a probation officer, who authorizes a charge against a juvenile and who also must deal with that juven ile under

Section 31 of the Juvenile Del inquents Act, which provides a duty, among other things, to represent the best interests of a child when a case is heard." Now, Mr . Chairman, that suggests to me that, in rural Manitoba anyway, we have a highly anomalous situation and one that I think demands, we can all agre e, demands redress. Goodness knows, if Crown attorneys are dissatisfied with the existence of that particular situatibn - and I don't blame them because they may find themselves having to prosecute cases that should never have been before the courts.

And we might have juveniles appearing that should ne ver have been there in the first place when untrained social work ers are laying the charges. It's proba bly even worse than police laying the charges because social workers probably are even further rem oved from the process than the poli ce, and particularly since there is such a conflict and one cannot see how the probation officer can lay a charge against - 453 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 the youngster and then turn around and suggest that he'll discharge his duty under the Juvenile Delinquents Act and look after his best interests. I mean you can't be both prosecutor and the best friend simult aneously. So I'm wondering whether or not any action is being taken, Mr. Chairman, by the Honourable Attorney-Gen eral to redress this situation and afford rural kids the same rights as their urban counterparts. MR . ME RC IER: Mr.

Chairman, subsequent to the report of the Juvenile Justice Committee, we established a senior group of re presentatives from Health and Community Services, Correct ions and Education to review his recomm endations. As a result of this review, there's no question there is need for clarification that the Crown Attorney has the ulti mate responsibility for the laying of charges under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

At the same time, the people involved in the system recognize that a large percentage, approximately 40 percent of the cases in Juvenile Court, are diverted out of the system and handled non-judicially by Pr obation Services. So that whole matter is under review with all the departments involved in a particular case. There's no question where the ulti mate responsibility lies. MR . CORRIN: Suppl eme ntary to that, Mr.

Chairman, I note that the Justice Comm ittee and Chief Judge Gyles mentioned that if anything effective was going to be done in this situation, that there would have to be a significant number of ne w Cr own attorneys introduced to the juvenile justice system in the rural areas.

He said that - perhaps I should quote again - he rec ommends, "that every rural area have a Crown attorney who would be responsible for juvenile prosecutions in that area, and who could be contacted with respect to the laying of charges, non-judicial dispositions or what other action should be taken with respect to the juvenile." So it's clear , Mr. Chairman, that the answer lies in the ret ention of more staff. It's the age-old story, I suppose, for this department; if you're going to do the job, you need bodies.

I'm wondering whether the Attor ney-General can tell us whether, in the appropriation, whether there is in this appropriation sufficient money to provide for the retention of more staff in the rural areas in the juvenile system. Are we going to have two, or three, or five, or ten more juvenile court attorneys in the upcoming year? MR . MER CIER: Well , we have provision for some additions in the rural areas, Mr. Chairman, but you can't have have it both ways. At least the opposition will have to decide where they want to rest their case.

At the beginning of these Estimates I heard nothing but conce rn expressed about the expansion in this department; now I hear concern expressed that there's not en ough expansion in one area. So this is a problem. MR . CORRIN: On that point, Mr.

Chairman, it's true that the Member for Burrows was concerned about the expansion of the departme nt, and it's true that he, on a very general basis, and I suppose you could say that I was a bit concerned about the 60 percent increase to Planning and Manage ment, essentially for computer services, and the rather meagre 4 1/2 percent increase over the past three years to the Human Rights Commission. I expressed that one concern, that I didn't thing there was parity or equity.

It didn't rec omme nd itself to me that one should be given such disproportionate budget favour whilst the others should be discarded to the rubbish heap for such a lengthy period of time. But with respect to the need for a Crown attorney, I don't think there's a person at this table that's famili ar with the situation who wouldn't agree that it's ne cessary that there be more Crown attorneys, and particularly in the rural areas, in order to afford equal tre atment to not only the youth of that area and their parents but also adult offenders or accused offenders.

Obviously, if we're going to handle cases efficiently, that means speedy justice and if we' re going to have a speedy justice system, we' re going to have to have sufficient numbers of prosecutors to handle the volume of cases. And I don't think that Judge Gyles had an axe to grind; he's in a good position to assess whether or not there's a need for more attorneys. I think we can all agree that the comm ittee me mbership was quite representative. As a matter of fact, he even included, I just noticed, one of the accused in the McGay College case.

So these peopl e obviously now had an opportunity to see both sides of the law in action, and hopefully it's restored their faith in its processes if they'd lost it. But I would ask whether the Attorney-General could be more specific in terms of what numbers of attorneys we might expect to be allocated in various rural areas. I think it would - 454 -

Thursday, 6 March 1980 be of some interest for me mbers of the various areas representative of the rural parts of our province to know whether there will be an increment in terms of their comple ment of personnel in the upcoming year. Surely we should know whether there will be one extra in Churchill, perhaps one extra staff here in Dauphin, Gladsto ne, whatever. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, we , as I indicate, are adding six prosecutors, which will provide a second prosecutor in Dauphin and will provide an additional prosecutor for the circuit in the eastern judicial district.

I would expect that both will be involved in juvenile court proceedings. MR . CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Honourable Attorney-General, I presume then that we're advised that there will be an addition for the province in the upcoming year of two Crown attorneys. rm wondering .•. MR . ME RC IER: No, I said two; if I can just clarify it, I said two out of the six additions to the prosecutorial staff will be in rural areas. On e in Dauphin, to be a second full- time Crown attorney in Dauphin, and the other will be on circuit in the eastern judicial district, mainly in the Beausejour, Powerview area.

We want to keep the Me mber for Rossmere busy, when he's not in the Legislature, out in that area. MR . CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, rm wondering whether we can have any comment as to the adequacy of two rural staff prosecutors. Will that be sufficient, in view of the juvenile justice report, to meet the demand?

I know that because of the restraint policy we were unable, for the past several years, to supple ment departmental staffs in many of the rural points, and rm wondering, in view of the fact that there has been a freeze, whether two more persons to service all of rural Manitoba will be adequate, given the fact that Chief Judge Gyles tells us that he doesn't have enough staff bodies to handle the juvenile offenders out in the country, let alone the adults , he was just talking about kids. I am wondering whether they are going to be able to service the whole of rural Man itoba.

It's a big piece of territory for two men. MR . CHAIRMA N: The Honourable Minister. MR . ME RCIE R: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the honourable membe r is ever fortunate en ough to be in government he will find that the departm ents never have enough people. This is a start, and a significant start I think, the addition of these two people and hopefully it's going to improve the situation in the areas of the greatest need and we can only strive to improve the system as the years go by. MR . CORRIN: I am wondering if the Honourable Minister could comment, Mr.

Chairman, on how many staff man increment we re recomm ended to him by any of the rapporteurs, nam ely, Messrs. Knox, Hall-Pilkey, Norton-Philco, or the provincial judges, led by Judge Giles and Kopstein. Did any of those four rapporteurs give a specific number that they thought would be appropriate or adequate? And I am sorry if I am embarrassing the Minister in continually and repetitiously asking for information about those four reports, Mr.

Chairma n, but as you will reme mber from last year, we we re advised that the opposition would not be made privy to the rec omm endations of any of those four reports, even though one presumes they were done at public expense if any expense was in fact encountered.

So it's nece ssary that we repeatedly ask the Minister to provide us with the information through the Estimates, in order that we can deter mine whether or not they made a specific recomm endation, because I would like to think that they did an adequate job and that they would have been capable of determining the number of suppleme ntal staff persons that would be nece ssary. I know Mr. Knox certainly was onto that point be cause that was one of the chief reasons for his inquiry.

He was looking into the backlog in the system and obviously the numbers of Crown Attorneys in the system were going to be of some significance in his study. So I am wondering, could you tell us, through you, Mr. Chairman, could we have information pertaining to the number of attorney s that we re recomm ended by Mr. Knox? Could we now find out what he thought would be adequate? MR . ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman, as the Me mber for Wellington would be aware from the statement I released in early September, both Mr. Knox and the provincial judges' reports - 45 5-

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 indicated a concern with respect to involving more senior experienced Crown Attorne ys at the beginning of the system in order to perhaps better assess the charges before they're laid in the evidence and be involved in the discussions with defense counsel at that stage.

There we re no specific recomm endations for any numbers or additions, but impli citly I think it was recognized if you have to involve more peopl e at the front and increase the caseflow it involves having to add people to do more case and to add people to do more speedy trials in the country courts, and that's really where the additions to staff have come, the other four additions. MR. EIN ARSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise at this point. MR. CHAI RMAN: You have heard the motion that Comm ittee rise. All agreed ? (Agreed) Committee rise. SUPPLY - LABOUR AND MANA GEM ENT MR . CHAIRM AN: Mr.

Abe Kovnats (Radisson) MR . CHAIRMAN: I would draw the honourable me mbers' attention to Page 68 of the Main Estimates, Department of Labour and Manpower. Under discussion is Resolution No. 89, Item is l.(

b) Administration, Item

(1) Salari es--pass - the Honourable Minister. MR. MacMA STER: Mr. Chairman, I was asked some questions be fore the House adjourned and I have some of those answers now. The comm unications co-ordinator, the salary is $27 ,1 00.00. The am ount of money spent on the three seminars that were held at Hecla Island: The first one, by and large the majority of expenses picked up by the Departme nt of Labour was $3,600, the second one was $100 that was shared by the industry and the unions; the third one we contributed another $1 00 , and that was shared by the industries and the union.

The me mber raised the question that was the first indication of a co mmittee within the Woods Comm ittee for reviewing essential services, was that established in 19 76, and that was correct. I think the rec ords indicate that it was somewhat inactive for a couple of years and that Woods Comm ittee was originally set up by the Honourable Duff Roblin in 1964 . I think that's all the outstanding questions, unless the Me mber for Churchill has some others. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Hon ourable Me mber for Churchill. MR . JAY COW AN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

No, those are the outstanding questions as of the break for the Private Me mbers' Hour earlier this afternoon. I would li ke to first start by apologizing to the Minister. I was attempting to foist some of my own confusion onto him, in trying to determine the number of em ployees for the different departments, and I kept using the number 24, and the Minister, of course, didn't know where I had gotten that number, and justifiabl y so, be cause I, at the time was inferring that I had got the number from his Estimates last year and I hadn't.

What I had done was rece ived the number from the Department of Labour annual report, and ru want to discuss that just a bit be fore passing this item.

But in the meanwhile, at the break, I had asked the Minister if he could be prepar ed to report back to us in a little more detail on what is occurring in regard to the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, because I know it's an issue that is of concern to all of us on this side and also, from conversations I have had, with constituents and with citizens of the province, I know that they are, too, anxious to understand and learn a li ttle bit more about what is being pl anned in this regard. MR . CHAI RMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR .

Ma cMA STER: For the first year of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, we expect to have a number of eight; we expect to geographically have re presentation on that particular committee. We expect for the - and rm talking about, this is the initial year, the first step into this particular area - we expect to pay the person who is chairing that particular committee a remuneration of $5,0 00 .00 . - 456 -

Thursday, 6 March 19 80 I have one specific item in mind that fd like that particular Council to look at it. There are other items, certainly , of interest. We can all name a dozen, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the comm ittee itself will choose to review, to ask to have researched, to arrang e for a government to give consideration of. There is just a host of things that I'm aware of that they possibly will be considering, but the one particular point that I will be asking them to give consideration to is the entry of more women into the trades in Manitoba.

We hope to do a great deal of that kind of work within the apprenticeship department, but we certainly want some input from the women on the Advisory Council. I will have on staff a co-ordinator that will be responsible and work with the Advisory Council, that job will be posted in the near future and there will be a secretary on staff for that council als o, Mr. Chairman, and that's really the sum total of what I have in mind at this particula r moment. The members opposite will have to bear with me. It's like a lot of other things, you're walking into something new.

It's something that the womens' organizations in Manitoba, dating back to 1972 , have been very adamant about, that there should be one established. The records show that last year when they made their annual presentation, the Provincial Council of Women, I asked them at that particular ti me if they could spend one year working through the Womens' Bureau and see how it worked.

They had a great deal of co-operation and there was a lot of good exchange between themselves and Womens' Bureau, but during the course of the year womens' organizations and women individually have convinced me that there should, in fact, be a separate group of some type, some structure. So this particular year, that's the route that we will be going, Mr. Chairman. MR . COWAN: Yes, Mr . Chairperson, pursuant to just a number of statements that the Minister made in his last re marks.

He mentioned that there would be one specific item which he takes special interest in and will be directing the Council to study, in particular, and that was the entry of more women into the trades, which is an area that does need study and should be studied, and of course we're pl eased to see that.

In light of the recent decision in re gards to equal pay for work of equal value, can the Minister indicate that he would be prepared now to direct the Advisory Council, or to suggest, I'm not certain, what lines of responsibility will be, but either to direct or to suggest to the Advisory Council that they would also exam ine the recent decision and the impact that it does have on women in Manitoba? Even though it was a decision made in another provincial jurisdiction, under federal legisla tion, it still does provide an example for Manitoba, and we should use it for that purpose.

Also, can he indicate if he will direct that Advisory Council to study the ever-increasing gap in wages between women and men, instead of coming together; instead of women making more as a percentage than they have in the past of men's wages on average, it seems to be going the other way. It seems to be that they're making less, and the differen tial is widening instead of lessening. And that is of concern to people who want to see a more equitable wage structure throughout the industrial economy, throughout the entire economic fabric of the province.

So I would ask the Minister if he is prepared to commit - and I know he can't comm it on behalf of the Advis ory Council - but if he is prepared to comm it a representation to that Council by himself, encouraging them to study these two very specific areas, as well as the important area of the entry of more women into the trades force. MR . Ma cMA STER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Advisory Council will want to, themsel ves, decide their priority points which they want to review. Two that the membe r has mentioned are pretty obvious ones in the press and in the eyesight of women today.

There are others that are very obvious also and this particular Council, I think, itself, should be left up to themselves really to decide what their priorities are. I have a pet one that I would like them to consider, but when you get into the list of the other areas - the Me mber for Churchill men tioned two; I think the womens' organizations may have 22 - I think I'd prefer to leave it with them.

If they suggested to me and asked me what we we re hoping to do about trying to get women into the trades and I was to talk to them, li ke I intend to, they may decide that they'll leave that with me and monitor how I work and how our departments do and that there certainly other

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-11b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 11b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c3289b3ade41caa2c0021201d169145e1117ef64

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