Manitoba Hansard — 7 May 1984 (Sitting 16B, 32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-16b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 168 - 8:00 p.m., MONDAY, 7 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pate) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Stave BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Bath DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon.' Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER,Hon.Yic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKI� Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Min nedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charles wood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burr ows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Os borne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP IND NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 7 May, 1984. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY- ATTORNEY-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee please come to order. The

section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estim ates of the Attorney- Genera l's Department. Let us begin with a statement from the Honourable Minister responsible. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Chairperson, and members of the committee. My opening statement will be brief but I think not without some significance. This, in my view, is an historic year for the administration of justice in Manitoba. There are a number of events which will occur through the year which I really think are historic and significant.

I'm going to mention them in a moment, but let me put that in the context of drawing to your attention that the Estimates for the Attorney-General in terms of year over year, show an increase of, I think, it's about 1.2 percent, and yet within that very tightly controlled budget, we are able to show a num ber of accomplishments. One is the amalgamation of the Court of Queen's Bench and the County Court. This follows a trend that is fairly recent in origin in Canada, in which instead of two superior courts with federally appointed judges, you have one.

We've been moving in a way toward that with the combi ned administration of the two courts, but this carries it to its logical conclusion. On or about June 29th we will have a swearing-in when some 16 County Court judges will be sworn in as judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. Let me take this opportunity to invite the former Attorney-General to be at that occasion; I think he should be. We will formally launch the amalgama ted court and we're ready for it.

There are some odds and ends, but we've been planning it for a long time under the leadership of the Deputy and Assistant Deputy - and I've had occasion to pay tribute to both Gordon Pilkey and Gil Good man in the House - and the Director of Court Services, Marvin Bruce, to whom I'd also like to pay tribute here; Director of Administration, Pat Sinnott, who is with us tonight; Director of Financial Services, Brian Arnason. lt's all been a team without which this could not have been done. it's no mean task to amalgamate two courts.

I should also like to pay tribute to Legislative Counsel, who assisted in the di fficult job of dr aft ing th e appropriate legislation. There are still one or two things that have to be done in terms of legislation, actually at th e federal level, to complete the legislative background. So that's No. 1, the amalgamation of the two courts. Secondly, at the same time we will formally proclaim and launch the Family Division of the Court of Queen's 483 Bench.

This is popularly known as a unified family court and it is receiving remarkably warm acclaim from practitioners and from women's groups, and indeed it will be the kind of family court that we've needed for some time - I think we've all recognized that we've needed - where you not only have centralized court services and that in itself is inportant because of fractured jurisdiction. Now women with - particularly women, but not only women - famil ies In trouble let me put it more accurately; families in trouble have had to sometimes go to as many as three courts to resolve those difficulties.

But of even greater significance we are moving into close ju xtaposition with the Family Division from the Community Services side, a conciliation group that will be enlarged somewhat - and that's not in our Budget but I'm just putting that in context - because the stress and the empha sis is very much going to be on conciliation. Let me make it clear that's not reco nciliation, although one always looks for opportunities to help in that context.

One assumes by the time the parties have reached court that reconciliation is out of the question; conciliation in the sense of trying to bring the parties to an agreement as how to resolve custody, visiting, the separation of assets, the division of assets, and it's just clear I think, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that when parties can be - through the help of the court and the conciliation services - led to an agreement that that then does a tremendous amount to make an otherwise difficult time less difficult and to reduce the well-known phenomenon - the win-lose phenomenon in which there's bitterness - and they come back to court again and again and again and the losers are, almost invariably in addition to the parties themselves, are the children, if there are children, who become pawns in a bitter battle between spouses in conflict.

Spouses may be in trouble but they need not necessarily be in conflict. So that's No. 2 on the agenda for what I call an historic year.

No. 3 is The Young Offenders Act now proclaimed as of April 2. lt's been a long time coming this replacement for The Juvenile Delinquents Act. 1 remember participating in meetings called under the aegis of the Canadian Council of Social Development with members from Justice and the Solicitor General as far back as 1974 - I'm sure discussions leading to Young Offenders go back earlier than that - In which we began to discuss some of the concepts which have under gone a lot of changes and will now finall y materialize in Young Offenders. The Young Offenders Act will be administered by a Youth Court.

That Youth Court will be essentially the Family Division of the Provincial Judges Court now as of July 1, at least, no longer dealing in the Eastern Judicial District with family matters, and being able to devote more of its time and energies to dealing with young offenders. I should point out here, as I'll point out a bit later, that you will find no budget in these Estimates for young

Monday, 7 May, 1984 offenders. The reason for that is that with the on again, off again, off again, off again approach of the Federal Government where one ne ver kne w if indeed the promises of the proclamation of Young Offenders would materialize. At the time the Estimates were prepare d we simply took note of the fact that in the event Young Offenders is proclaimed that there would have to be some budget. it's not, we think, substantial this year.

We think that in terms of this department where we'll be called upon to deliver extra Legal Aid Services that we may be looking at, and I'll give details later on, something like $1 55,000 at the most. I should point out here that with respect to the Legal Aid component of Young Offenders, the Federal Provincial Agreements have not yet been concluded because the details have not yet been finalized. There's a meeting towards the end of this month which may lead to finali zation of that.

The first offer of the Federal Government was insufficient and we're working in close association with other provincial admini strations to having a more appropriate agreement prepared. So, No. 3, in terms of giganti c steps in the administration of justice, is Young Offenders. Associated with that and really deserving of special mention is the ongoing development - which in terms of its current phase, was begun in 1982 - of the buildings, the capital side, where the new Law Courts Bu ilding which will ultimately be the Provincial Court will be completed, we now expect - it's very much on

schedule - in November, probably ready for occupation in Jan uary. When it's occupied, the old Law Courts will undergo consid erabl e reno vations includ ing utilizing the basement space, providing addi tional courtrooms, and doing all of the fire and safety upgrading that's been long delayed. This will be a unique opportuni ty for that to be done, because we will be able to move the Queen 's Bench over into the Provincial Courthouse for the year or year-and-a-half, that is ne ce ssary to do the renovations in the old Law Courts.

At the same time, we will be begin ning renovations of the Land Titles Office, including on this ne w plan the basement of the old Land Titles Office, and the old Land Title s Offices are going to be Judge s' Cham bers, and we resolved the problem that looked difficult. That is, the Family Division will be housed in term s of Chambers in the old Land Titles Office. So that's coming along nicely.

Fifthly , in terms of this, as I say, being an historic year for the admini stration of justice, in or about August, not later than September 1, I hope to be able to proclaim or have the Executive Counci l proclaim the Law Enforcement Review mechanism for de aling with citizens' complaints about alleged abuses of authori ty by the police. We're hoping to find modest quarters. lt will start as a very modest operation in the Old Market Square area close to the police station, the Public Safety Building, so that will be launched.

So these five items, as I say, are very very sign ificant items all happening in the one year, and will certainly be at least a thre shold or a notable point in the de velopment of the admini stration of justice in Mani toba. Let me very briefl y, to assist members of the committee on both sides, just indicate some of the program change s both in terms of additions an d deletions so that you can ident ify.

I should note that, overall, in terms of staff years which are not clearly 484 indicated or not indicated in the Estimates, we're moving from 975, which was the adjusted total at the end of fiscal'83-84 to 972.5, a slight reduction of 2.5 staff years. I'll give details of those right at the beginning so that members will have them identified. With respect to program changes that are reflected in the Estimates, let me just go over them because th.ay're not always easy to pick out. I mentioned Law Enforcement Review as budgete d this year at $10 7,000 and two staff years; a Commissioner and secretarial help.

That may not be quite enough but that's where we're starting from in any event. There will be, in terms of a program change - none of these are themselves major in terms of resources - a Trial Co-ordinator for the Provincial Judges Court for the four courts that we run on Broadwa y, but that position has been found within and it's not the addition of an extra staff year. We found gr eat di fficulties in resolving how to

schedule trials at the Provincial Judges level, and there is a great waste of time and resources - nobody's fault just the very nature - trials are scheduled and then fall away at the last minute with a plea of guilty and the judge is sitting there with a courtroom and staff and nothing to do for that day. Our judges don't like it any more than we do.

We were aware for some time of a system in B.C., Vancouver , where the use of a Trial Co-ordinator increases the use of a courtroom from roughly 2-point somethlng hours a day to more than double that, so we're beginni ng with one Trial Co-ordinator and four courtrooms and we think that will do a great deal, not only to maximize the use of courtrooms, but to shorten the waiting time from charge to trial. With respect to young offenders, I have already ind icated the approximate budget.

Here I may say that probably what we'll do is hire the necessary persons for young offe nd ers on a term basis for this year, or most of this year, until we can really get a handle. We just have no way of knowing precisely what resources we'll need, but when we get to that particular point I have a background paper that I can refer to in answering any questions about resources. Still in terms of additions, we've adde d two persons to Fatalitie s Inq uiries.

These are investigative staff and two to the very very carefully run operation of the Public Trustee, which is a ne t earner - but that itself, of course, is no excuse for adding staff - but we must serve the public and two persons have been added to the office of the Publi c Trustee. Those are the additions. In terms of deletions that are in the Estimates - but may not be highli ghted and so I'm highlighting - we are able to save the Surrogate Court fees because of the amalgamation.

I just wanted the Chairman of Treasury Board to hear this before he leaves because - (Interj ection) - No, you didn't; there was one good part of it I forgot to tell you. lt means a reduction after July 1 of 15 staff years. Actually, I should say that it really isn't 15 staff years now that the Chairpe rson of Treasury has left, the Judges of the County Court are being paid $3,000 a year for functioning, as what we can Surrogate Court Judges, that is, looking after wills and estates. Now as Judges of the Court of Queen 's Bench they're just going to do that as part of their normal well-paid duties.

In a parsimonious moment, we've taken away the $3,000 from each one of 15 judges. it's a $34,000 saving this year, $45,000 for a

Monday, 7 May, 1984 full year, and the deletion of 15 staff years which had to be in our total of 975 in order for them to be paid. We have eliminated the payment of witness fees to the Winnipeg Police; that's a saving of $125,000.00. No other police force in Manitoba gets witness fees. They take it as part of their duty to appear when called. Indeed, I can't say that there's nowhere else in Canada where police are paid a witness fee, but in very few jurisdictions are the police paid a witness fee; that's $125,000.00. We've had to eliminate from our computer programs the promise system for this year.

That's an acronym for something that I'll never remember, but it's a computer system for the Provincial Courts, and that's $150,000.00. I do hope that we may be able to restore that fairly soon because it's a good system. Special surveys have fluctuated from 1979-1980. There were 50,000 in each year and then in 1981 they were 100,000; they went up to 150,000, then down and this year they're back to 50,000. We are continuing the program but we have had to reduce a little bit in terms of special surveys.

With respect to the Manitoba Police Commission, the Executive Director retired - he is still nominally on payroll because he had some time coming until the end of this month - and we're not proposing, at least immediately, to replace the Executive Director. We have our Crime Prevention Officer who will act as Acting Executive Director and we're re-examining the functioning of the Manitoba Police Commi ssion to make sure it is in lock step with the law enforcement agency. So that's a staff year that comes off.

With Provincial Court Judges, we didn't replace Judge Halprin, who was appointed to the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench and we didn't replace Judge Baryluk, who retired and is now part-time with the Federal Court. So there's two SYs saved there. The reason we didn't replace them is that with the coming into existence of the Family Division and all of that being transferred to federally appointed judges we, in effect, at least at the beginning of this year and I think it will continue throughout the year, had a relative surplus of Provincial Court judges.

So too we were able to cut out from the part-time component 1.5 staff years of part-time judges, but we may have to re-examine that. With the Land Titles office, we are on a long-term computerization program which is going to be very very helpful and, over the course of this year, that will mean a deletion of four full-time persons. Paradoxically, in order to complete all of the work that's necessary for computerization we will, during the course of the next few months, have to use five term positions until the end of December, I expect.

I may say that with the four full-time positions being eliminated in the Land Titles office because of computerization, we are working on redeployment. One has already been redeployed and I'm not sure, as of this moment, what the redeployment situation is with respect to the other three. With respect to limited jurisdicton magistrates, we have between 100 and 200 limited jur isdiction magistrates and J.P.'s throughout the province, we think a little shrinkage can take place there and, effectively, one staff year has been eliminated from that pool this year.

One administrative person has been eliminated from Legal Aid, that is not a person but a position. 485 With respect to the office of Legislative Counsel, one staff person has been seconded to Cultural Affairs which has the jurisdiction over the translation section, and the legal translation

section is housed with the general translation section. We've been trying for two or three years to get a senior person to sort of supervise, in terms of revising the rough translation done by line legal translation staff. We've been unable to hire and so we seconded Greg Yost from the Legislative Counsel's office over to Cultural Affairs, but we still hope, pending on the volume of work that may be required and we won't know that really until the Supreme Court decides, to hire a senior legal translating reviser from outside.

Finally, in terms of staff year deletions, the only one other deletion is really hardly worth mentioning since I have assumed the awesome duties of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, half my salary is paid from that Budget so there is half a staff year less. So I sit before you in my embodiment as half a person.

Those are the deletions so the overall result is a deletion through the year of 2.5 positions. lt shows a lot of stability in the department and I think, remarkably so, because when we get to Court Services and if you would like some particular statistics you'll see that the workload increase has been, relatively speaking, enormous as it has in Land Titles, but computerization will help there. Finall y, just two other opening comments, Mr . Chairperson, grants this year were not overly generous with respect to grants from the Department of the Attorney General, I'll have to look into that.

We are continuing at the same level grant given last year and the year before to MARL at $25,000.00. This year, we're making a special grant to the Manitoba

section of the Canadian Bar which is hosting the Annual Convention of the Canadian Bar. Now that is going to be a very very big event taking place. We get it about once every 10 years and it's happening in Winnipeg at the end of August, beginning of Septe mber . We're granting $20,000 and we may want to increase that, but that's the grant in the Estimate at the moment. I'll be pleased if the appropriate time comes to tell you more about the splendid plans which are being developed under the leadership of the Manitoba Bar, and especially Chris Pappas for this event.

The third grant is to the DOTC Police Force in the amount of $100,000, the same level of the actual grant last year. The only other change I should highlight now because, again, I'm trying to highlight those things which may not leap from the page and I would like committee members to be aware of them, is that we are reducing the size of the Board of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission from seven to five, and of the Board of Review from five to four; those are the boards and commission changes. Those are my opening remarks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mini ster.

The Chair now calls upon the leading opposition critic to make his customary reply to the Minister's opening remark, if the leading opposition critic so desires. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.

Mond•J, 7 May, 1884 I note, firstl y, the Attorney General ind icates an incr ease of 1. 2 percent overall for the Department of the Attorne y General.

I think whilst we, on this side of the House, certainly are not one to be critical of the government's attempt to be restrained in its financial expenditures, I do want to say, for the reco rd, that I think this department is one that should be accorded a fairly high degree of priority, it performing I think one of the essential functions in our society, in terms of law enfor cem ent, etc. and cer tainly this is not a department that should be overly or unduly restrained in its expen ditures, I think because of it's importance to our province.

With respect to the five items that the Attorney General mentioned, I note that the admin istration of the Queen's Bench and County Court was amalgamated de facto while we were in government, and the Law Reform Commission was inst ructed to proceed with an in- depth review and recommendations with respect to amalgamation of the Court of Queen 's Bench and the d ounty Court and they, I think, performed a very important role in that function with their report and I'm pleased to see that the amalgamation will shortly be upon us.

With respect to the other Items, a Uni fied Family Court was an init iative which we support and I hope it will prove successful because I'm led to believe there is quite a backlog in family matters at the present time. Hopeful ly, the Unified Family Court will be able to reduce some of that backlog that is presently before the Court with respect to contested matters. The Young Offenders Act, of course, as the Attorney General indi cates, I think, goes back at least a decade in its preparation.

I will want to review with the Attorn ey General the Federal Government's financial contribution towards the administration of The Young Offenders Act. Hopefully it will prove to be an improvement in the system of law and young people in conflict with the law. We're also, of course, happy to see that the Provincial Judges Court Building is well on its way. We had developed a plan for its construction and other steps to follow, and I'm pleased to see that the Attoney General is following through with that.

With respect to some of the other matters, the reductions and deletions, rather than comment now, I would like to comment on those as we go through each individual item. I'm particularly concerned with respect to the refe rence to the Trials Co-ordinator and what I believe has been developed into an incr ease in the length of time and delay in criminal trials in the Provincial Judges Court, and would like to deal with that to some degree when we get to that particular item. We can deal with the other items as we deal with them individua lly. MR.

CHAIRMAN: At this point in time the Chair now invites the members of the departmental staff to kindly take their respective places. HON. R. PENNER: May I int roduce to members of the committee: Pat Sinn ott, Director of Admini stration; Brian Arnason, Director of Finance; John Guy, Acting Assistant Deputy, long-time Director of Prosecutions and sometime high official of the Law Society. 486 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Deferring our debates on the item entitled Minister's Sal ary, which is Item 1.(a), we shall begin deliberation with the next item 1.(bX1) . The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: With respect to this item, the first matter I would simply like to raise and ask the Attorney General is, can he inform us as to when he expects to make the appointment of a new Deputy Minister for the department? HON. R. PENNER: I have two more interviews that are taking place, scheduled for Wednesday of this week, and that should complete the interviews. I would hope to be in a position to come before Cabinet with some recommendations within two weeks so that I hope that we can make the appointments, anno unce the appointments, in about two weeks time. MR. G.

MERCIER: Is it the intention of the Attorney General to appoint, at that time also, two Assistant Deputy Ministers - one in the criminal area and the other in the civil area? HON. R. PENNER: Active discussions are taking place with respect to a reorganization of the work within the department, which may have that result. I hope so, but it's a question of being able to allocate resources. I simply point out, in this context, that the work of the Department of the Attorney-General has expanded enormous ly, not just under this administration, but under previous admin istrations, and the Member for St.

Norbert will be able to verify this where, the traditional role of an Attorney-Gener al's department was thought of as law enforcement - police and courts, on the criminal side - but, of course, even traditionally has been more than that and, in the last decade, has had added to it what we loosely call the "justice component" dealing with family matters, which have really proliferated in a numb er of ways with the various boards and commissions - Legal Aid, Human Rights, vastly expande d role of a Public Trustee's office.

All of this has expanded to the point, and of course, dealing with personnel close to a thousand, where it seems to me that we might really maximize the contributions made by senior staff by reorga nization, which might see a Deputy and two Assistant Deputies, but that decision has not yet been made. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is there an in crease in personnel under (bX 1)? HON. R. PENNER: No. M� G. ME�CIER: Can the Minister account for the 10 percent in crease then? HON. R.

PENNER: Last year, Janu ary of'83, appointed a special assistant and the staff year was shown but the salary was by Supplemen tary, and now the salary is shown in the 21 6,300.00. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Attorn ey General could ind icate then how many executive assistants he has and how many special assistants.

Monday, 7 May, 1984 HON. R. PENNER: I just have one executive assistant and one special assistant. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think this might be an appropriate spot to raise a question. I have watched and read news reports with respect to the challenge that began in the Province of Alberta with respect to The Lord's Day Act. I believe that matter is now before the Supreme Court. HON. R. PENNER: I believe it's from Ontario. MR. G. MERCIER: Probably both. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Has the Attorney-General intervened in that matter? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. G. MERCIER: Could you explain why? HON. R.

PENNER: lt was my view and the view of officials in my department that the major issues that have to be canvassed in that case were being brought forward by the Government of Ontario, Government of Alberta, the Federal Government. and that there was nothing that we could add to the argument other than cost to our own department and that this was not a case in which Manitoba had a particular interest that wasn't being represen ted. On those grounds, there appeared to be no special justi fication for the expenditur e of money to in tervene. MR. G. MERCIER: Just for information, Mr. Chairman.

Am I correct in believing that case to be heard some time before the end of June in the Supreme Court? HON. R. PENNER: I believe you are right. In fact, it may already have been argued, although I can't be sure of that, but I know it is to argued as one of the first batch of Charter cases to be heard by the Supreme Court. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, unle ss some other member of the committee has some comments, I have no further questions on this item. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b)(1) which relates to Executive Support: Salarie s-pass; 1.(b)(2) which relates to Executive Support: Other Expenditu res-pass .

We might as well consider two items together. We will consider Item 1.(c)(1) and 1.(c)(2) next. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Attorney-General could just ind icate where the decrease is in this particular area. HON. R. PENNER: We had a term staff, full term staff, as a replacement work in the file room and we have cut that to half. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(c)(1)-pass; 1.(c)(2)-pass. 1.(d)(1) and 1.(d)(2) together . The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Attorney-General ind icated that there was nothing in the Budget for the promise system which has been ongoing for a numb er of years. I think he inferred that the computerization of the Land Titles Office is still ongoing. I wonder if he could indicate if this is the area of expenditure primarily dealing with computerization of the Land Titles Office then? HON. R. PENNER: The primary cut in Other Expen ditures under Computer Services is the promise system. 150,000.00. There are a few other dollar cuts generally, but the primary sum was 150,000, the promise system. MR. G. MERCIER: I assume, Mr.

Chairman, that the Attorne y-General would like to, in the next year's Budget, continue the work on the promise system. How far away is that system from being implemented and at what cost? HON. R. PENNER: Acutally, fairly close, if we can scrape some funds off the side of the barrel before the end of this fiscal year, we're hoping to be able to do that. If we could get it back on track by September, October, then I think we are on the threshold of being able to run it as a pilot through - is it the Public Safety Building? - the Public Safety Building would be the first area where we would run it. MR.

CHAI RMAN: Item 1. (d)( 1) which relates to Computer Servies: Salaries-pass; Item 1.(d)(2) relating to Computer Services: Other Expenditures-pass. We go now to Item 2.(a)( 1) with relation to Legal Services, Civil Litigation: Sal aries and Oth er Expenditues, 2.(a)( 1) and 2.(a)(2) together. 487 The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Attorney General a question the other day with respect to the maintenance and enforcement system, and I think it would come within this area . . . HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it does. MR. G. MERCIER: . . . of the expen diture.

The Manitoba system has recently received very favourable publicity across Canada in national news magazines and on the CBC Journal the other even ing, and it is a system that is doing what was inten ded when we implemented it. What I find disturbing is the fact that other provincial jurisdictions seem to still be reluctant not only to adopt such a system but to co-operate in the manner that Manitoba does in terms of enforcing other maintenance orders in Manitoba through the use of Crown Attorneys and enforcing ot her custody orders from other jurisdictions in Manitoba through Crown Attorne ys.

I wonder if the Attor ney-General could ind icate whether - and I believe he did indic ate the other day that the Federal -Provincial Committee is considering these matters - could he ind icate whether or not any progress is being made with respect to those matters

Mondar. 7 ... ,, 1914 and what does he anticipate to happen with respect to a Federal Registry and Enforcement System, and access to information which is requir ed? HON. R. PENNER: I'm hopeful that we're on the thr eshold of some major changes the re. I'm glad that the Member for St.

Norbert asked me that question because I'd like to set it straight on the record - I meant to do that in the last couple of days - the answer which I gave him which was substantially correc t, but in identifying provinces where we still had some difficulties I wrongly identified Quebec where, in fact, Quebec is very advanced in terms of utilizing somewhat the same system; so I was in error in Identifying Quebec. I believe that the Province of Ontario is on the threshold of a fully developed system, similar to Manitoba's system.

I note that the Federal Minister of Justice is certainly talking up a strorm in terms of the national system, and officials in the Department of Ju stic e are working on it; but I wasn 't all th at encouraged when he seemed to say, as I heard him on National TV, this is a great idea and the Fads want to take full credit for it because we're encouragin g it, but by the way, we're not putting any resources forward for it; it's up to the provinces.

I suppose in a way it is, but I think in terms of a national system, there I think it is a federal responsibility and indeed the development of a national system can best be done through the Federal Department of Justice and I would hope that some resources are found for that within this current year. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, that was a comment that concerned me when I heard the Federal Min ister say that. What is he suggesting? He's prepared to bring in some legislation and establish the Registry, but it will have to be funded from Provincial Governments? HON. R.

PENNER: That's what he seemed to be saying and 1 was astonished because that didn' t make sense. MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General indic ate whether any other Provincial Government are supplyin g enforcement thr ough their Att orney-Genera l's Department, through Crown Attorneys, as we do in Manitoba? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that question as notice. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on another matter that relates to Family Law, the Attorney-General has received - and I have received - over the past year, sin ce Law Amend ments Commi ttee heard some represent ations with respect to proposed amendments dealing with joint custody. There has been a group formed, I thi nk, that is called "Fathers." Has the Attorney-General considered their represent ations and briefs and does he intend to make any amendments with respect to the Family Law legislation with respect to this concept which they are advocating, of joint custody? HON. R.

PENNER: The matter is not under active consideration at this time. 1t was very carefu lly considered because when I brought in amendm ents 488 last time it was one of the recommendations in the Carr Report; but when the Carr Report was circu lated for comment, there were far more negative comments than there were positive comments from Family Law practitioners. lt seemed to me that it required some further investigation.

On the surface it seemed to me a good proposal because the proposal in fact was not to make joint custody a matter of form or a matter of inevitable disposition, but that the option would be clearly one that would be before the judge and would be given as part of a custody order un less circumstances were brought to the attention of the judge which militated against an award of joint custody. However, the matter is a difficult one and all I can say is, it's not under active consideration at this time and certainly not for this Session. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, could the Attorney General ind icate, salaries are down , I assume that in view of his open ing statement that it doesn't mean the num ber of lawyers in the department are being reduced, if he could answer that. There's also the indication the Other Expen ditures increased by nearly 100 percent. I wonder if he could ex;Jiain those two items. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, that's just the 27th pay period, so that will crop up from time-to-time, but lawyers being as relatively well paid as they are - I say relatively because in absolute terms, as you and I know, lawyers are unde rpaid considering the contribution they make to the well-being of society - but being relatively well paid, the 27th pay period does make a difference here. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Attorney-General ind icate perhaps, the final and the total bill for legal fees with respect to CFI? HON. R.

PENNER: I think the figure that I could give you now doesn't differ very much from the figure that was supplied last time because the final bill from counsel, on the criminal side, Mr. MacGregor, has not yet been tendered; but I'll take that as notice. lt's in excess of $4 million, coun ting the cost of the commission. Of course we're presently incurring some civil-side costs. We retained the services of the law firm of Tayl or, Brazzell, McCaffrey - Mr. McCaffrey handling the civil case of against A.D. Little. There I'm quite optimistic that on the civil side we may show a substantial win. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 2.(a)(1) and 2.(a)(2), relating to Civil Litigation: Salar ies and Other Expenditur es- pass. We now go to Item 2.(b)( 1) which relate to Crimin al Pro·.ections: Salaries, and 2.(b)(2) which relates to Other Expenditur es; 2.(b)(1) and 2.( b)(2). The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, in July, the Attorn ey General released a report prepared by a Committee on Impaired Driving. A nu mber of recommendations were made and the Attorney-General indicated that he would require time to study the recommendations, etc. Could he ind icate now what recommendations he intends to act on?

HON. R. PENNER: Yes. In general, I'll be making a fuller statement in the House before the end of the month, but I have no hesitation in indicating what's in the works. In the works is the possibility of some provincial assistance to increase the scope of the ALERT Program. There is lots of evidence to show that not only is this a very widely supported program, but much more to the point - although, of course, that's not without its point - is that it's one of the most effective programs in an area which tends to intractable.

That is, it's estimated that there may be as many as over half a million incidents of nighttime impaired driving in the City of Winnipeg every year, and we're only able to apprehend and bring into court some 3,500 drivers and that's not a particularly comforting statistic. We've got to do more to bring home to drivers the greater certainty of being caught and a much more constant and visible ALERT Program does play a role in doing that.

Now, we don't run a provincial police force but we can perhaps be of some assistance to the major force concerned, the City of Winnipeg force, and we are discussing with the City of Winnipeg officials the poss ibility of some provincial assistance to extending the ALERT Program. That's No. 1. No. 2, we have in preparation - some of which, I think, may be available before the end of this month, I hope by the long weekend - a very strong media campaign on drinking and driving. This is not directly from this department, but it's an offshoot of the work of the committee. I think that would be fund ed through M PlC.

In terms of legislation, you will have noted in the Throne Speech a reference to The Blood Test Act. This is not, let me say immediately, an attempt to follow the B.

C. route which I had estimated was doomed to failure from the beginning. lt was really an attempt to legislate criminal law which only the Federal Government can do, but to broaden the exemption from civil liability from doctors to include other health practitioners who are qualified to take blood tests and who may take a blood test from an unconscious person without the consent of that person and would, under our legislation, now be exempt from civil liability except, of course, for negligence.

We're looking very carefully - and we, I think, will be making a decision very shortly - at an amendment to The Highway Traffic Act which would curtail the appeals from the Licence Suspension Appeal Board to the County Court. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the legislation with taking blood tests, will that go as far as the number of doctors, I think, in recent articles have ind icated it should go, to protect them from liability? HON. R. PENNER: Yes.

In fact, some major representations were made by the MHO and the nurses and it will cover - it's being redrafted by Legislative Counsel so that it covers, instead of referring to doctors, it refers to health practitioners who are defined to include doctors and other persons qualified, whether they are lab technicians or nurses, to take blood tests. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, with respect to another matter , the Attorney-General made some 489 comment in the middle of March that police line-ups are quite often unfair and he said he wanted his department and the police to look at recommendations brought out by the Canadian Law Reform Commission. Has the department completed their review of this matter and have they issued new instructions or recommendations? HON. R. PENNER: No, that hasn't been completed yet, but it is in process. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on another matter.

I believe I have asked the Attorney-General about his policy with respect to this matter which has been raised in past years. lt was indic ated last December that the Province of Alberta was going to appeal an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that police can no longer enter premises to install electronic eavesdropping equipment. I believe it has been the policy in Manitoba that this will be al lowed by law and will be done by law enforcement officers and I believe that the

article indicates that Her Honour, Judge Ruth Krindle, in 1982 said that the Charter of Rights does not prevent police from secretly entering private homes and businesses to plant a bug. Is it still the policy under the Attorney General to allow police to do this? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, with respect to the latter part of the question, we do not control nor do we attempt to control the investigative activities of the police. Those generally are mandated by the Criminal Code itself and other criminal statutes, and the police must carry out their duty according to law. All we do, as the Member for St.

Norbert knows - and indeed I think he initiated the policy, and I think correctly so, from the Attorney-General's Department - is before a Crown attorney goes to court to ask for a wiretap or the placing of electronic surveillance, the Crown Attorney will attend upon myself to review the facts leading to the application so they can be satisfied that the general requirements of the Code are satisfied, and that happens with respect to wiretap authorizations initiated by our Crown attorneys. lt doesn't, of course, happen with respect to those initiated by the RCMP.

Now, in terms of the legal question as to whether or not a wi retap authorization is sufficient to al low surreptitious entry to make the interception, if it's a phone interception, in some instances, it may have to be made internally, but not usually; but if it's a question of the planting of an electronic bug then usually it will require some form of surreptitious entry, not always. That matter was first raised, in fact, in an aside, a judicial aside, by Mr. Justice Huband in the Dash case but was not really dealt with fully at the time. lt has been argued before the Supreme Court.

Manitoba intervened in that one and took the position that the granting of the authorization carried with it the right to surreptitious entry because you couldn't place an electronic surveillance apparatus in most instances without doing that, and clearly you are not about to - this is the argument - knock on the person's door and say, "By the way, I would like to place a bug in your place, may I come in?" But that's reserved; we don't know what the judgment of the Supreme Court will be. lt's a tough case, you can argue both sides of that. I

am only glad that I wasn't required to argue either side; competent counsel argued it. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, although the Attorn ey-General ind icates that the police generally make their own decisions with respect to these matters, that the department doesn't try to interfere with the investigative process, can he ind icate, however, that the practice of law enforcement officers has not changed then and that they are still entering private homes and buildings to plant bugs in those instances, obviously, where there is a court order? HON. R.

PENNER: I would have no way of answering that question other than speculatively because, clearly, my authority extends no furt her. My involvement extends no further than Flleeting with a Crown Attorney who in.dicates the circum stances le ading to an application and, there after, I know nothing and want to know nothing of what happens. I can only surmise that, since there is no high decision which says that that kind of entry can't be made, that it is likely that it is being made. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, I assume then, Mr. Chairman, at least, that there has been no direction from the department not to do that.

HON. R. PENNER: There has been no direction not to do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, last fall there was a decison of the Supreme Court that appeared to ind icate that, and I am quoting from a newspaper

article that states: "Judge Laskin, in his 7-0 ruling, said prosecutorial authority is conferred on the provinces through

Section 2 of the Criminal Code, not through the Constitution," and a commentator said that that means that Parliament can remove provincial power in this area simply by amending the Criminal Code and could place in the hands of the Federal Attorney-General all powers of decision in criminal prosecutions. Could the Attorney-General ind icate whether this has been a subject of discussion among prov in cial Attorneys-General and with the Federal Minister of Justice? HON. R. PENNER: Indeed, it has. There were two parallel decisions - Cripps and C.N.

Transport - that came to that conclusion, and all provincial Attorne ys General were unit ed in being more than somewhat alarmed by the import of that decision. We were not comforted by assurances from the Min ister of Justice that, oh well, we would not really attempt to use the decision to garner onto ourselves greater prosecutorial responsibility; but, nevertheless, the judgment sits there.

What it is, and the fact is authority for the type of thing that we have seen - although I suppose we have accepted it conventionally - in young offenders where the Federal Government can pass, let's say. a scheme that may have vast cost impl ications for law enforcement within a province and say, here you are, provincial administrations, we have decided, because under

Section 91( 27) of The Constitution Act, 1867 we have the right to legislate, and the Su preme Court has 490 decided that that carries with it the right to include all kinds of procedurial matters and all the rest of it, and you pick up the tab. Now, under Young Offenders, of course, they picked up some of the tab, but what we find then, in those circumstances, is that we are knocking at the door by saying, look, you are imposing an enormous cost - in some cases, ap unknown cost that we can only guess at initia lly. Where does that leave us? Because under

Section 92(14) we have the right to - is it 92( 14) or (15) - the Member for St. Norbert will straighten me out, one of them - we have the right to constitute courts for the admini stration of justice.

Without getting into the academic and technical side, the Attorneys-General met in Toronto on March 6th or 7th, a day preceding the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights, and that was the primary matter on the agenda and we drafted a joint response to the Department of Jus tice asking for immediate consideration of constitutional changes to restore the proper balance between historic provincial responsibility in this area and federal legislative responsibilit y. MR. G. MERCIER: Has there been a response from the Federal Minister? HON. R. PENNER: No, there hasn't, not a formal response.

He is somewhat busy these days. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on another matter. In the fall of 198 1, the Solicitor General released a study of conditional releases.

Since then, and I suppose most recently this weekend with the incident that occurred, there have been comments and concerns expressed by citizens, judges, Crown Attorne ys with respect to the admin istration of parole and what seems to be, in the minds of many, I suppose fundamentally the release of accused people or incarcerated people too early by virtue of the many methods of early release, be it temporary absence, day parole, earned remission or mandatory supervision, I wonder if the Attorney General has, through his department or himself, raised this matter with Federal Min isters.

I would think it is a matter of concern, not only to many people in this province, to people right across the countr y, with the manner in which this discretion has been exercised by the Parole Board. Could the Attorney-General indi cate if he has made any formal response to the Solicitor General on the study that Mr. Kaplan had done? HON. R. PENNER: No, I haven 't.

Since some kind soul - back how many years ago is it? - was kind enough to remove, in effect, Solicitor General functions, correction functions from the oppressed back of the Att.:>rneys-General of this province, that question is juris dictionally substantially unde r the Min ister of Communi ty Services and Corrections and it would be appropriate for that Min ister to make any formal representations.

I do note, however, that the Minister of Justice has proposed a considera ble change to sentencing and sentence structure, some of which, I'm not sure, and perhaps all of which is encompassed in Bill C-69, Sentencing, and there are some changes which are being proposed, however, which will still not deal with

Monday, 7 May, 1984 fundamental questions relating to parole, although they will deal with questions relating to probation. lt now appears that C-69 - for indeed, I think that's the right number - will not go through before the next election, so no representations have been called for from this department. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr .

Chairman , in view of the concerns that have been expressed by certainly Provincial Judges and others in the Criminal Justice System , does he not consider to have some responsibi lity for making some inquir ies and investigations and making some representations to the Federal Mini ster with respect to this matter? Has it not been a topic of discussion at Provincial Attorney General meetings? HON. R. PENNER: No, it has not. MR. G. MERCIER: Can he indi cate whether the Provincial Min ister of Corrections has made any representations? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice and attempt to find out. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)(1) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go back to something the Attorney-General mentioned earl ier. lt was dealing with the ALERT Program and I believe he said, was it possible there might be 500,000 - was that the word you said - intoxicated drivers in one year, is it? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: In the City of Winnipeg? HON. R.

PENNER: Yes. lt's a statistical extrapolation and sounds to me - but it has only a sort of a gut reaction on the high side - but certainly I believe that there are a lot more than are apprehended because, by the very nature of the beast covers a wide spectrum; and impaired driving at low levels usually only comes to the attention of the authorities if in fact the impaired driver is involved in an accident, or is seen driving erratically, or in a very very slow methodical way, and that also alerts the authorities; but otherwise it doesn't necessarily come to the attention of the authorities.

What comes to the attention of the authorities of course are - and regrettably because it's after the fact - the serious incidents, and those are the ones we are generally more aware of when you're dealing with the alcoholic and the seriously impaired problem drinker driver. Those are the ones that are involved in the accidents and with loss of property, loss of life, they come to the attention of the authorities, but on the lower end of the spectrum, not so much. MR. H. GRAHAM: There seems to be a period once a year when the ALERT Program gets a good play in the press and seems to be highly publicized.

Is that the only period of the year when the ALERT Program is in effect. or is it in effect 365 days of the year? 491 HON. R. PENNER: Unfortunately, that's about the only time that it's run with any consistency, although they have lengthened the period from a few days in-between the two holidays to, I think, close to a month now, where they run the ALERT Program. We would like to see it run on a year-round basis. MR. H. GRAHAM: When that is being run in the urban area here, is that run only by the City of Winnipeg Police? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: There is no participation by the RCMP, is there? HON. R.

PENNER: No. But I should add . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have order here, please? Mr. Min ister. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. lt comes from speaking while impaired. The RCMP do run a spot-check program of their own and actually quite consistently, through the year. MR. H. GRAHAM: But that is all outside of the urban area? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. H.

GRAHAM: As a non-urban resident, the figures that appear in the Liquor Commission Report do cause some concern where we see that the num ber of convictions for information sworn by the City Police was 920, resulting in fines totalling $47,521 in the last report of the Liquor Commission; and the number of convictions for information sworn by the RCM Police and rural police was 8,995, resulting in fines totalling $533,296, which is more than 10 times what occurs in the urban area, and yet Winnipeg has more than 50 percent of the population of the Province of Manitoba.

Does that indicate that the police effectiveness in the country is 10 times greater than that in the city, or does it mean that rural people drink 10 times as much as urban people, or how do you justify or rationalize the figur es that appear in that particular publication? HON. R. PENNER: I'm about to be unaccustomedly cautious. No, I certainly don't think it ind icates anything like a greater degree of drinking on the part of people in rural Manitoba than in the city. I have no way of knowing whether or not there's any difference, I suspect not.

But by the very nature that the highways, compared to a network of streets, are open and visible. lt's really a long chain of scrutiny, if you will, where the driver from a farm, let's say, in the local beverage room has to travel a fair distance down the highway to get from the beverage room back to the farm or, even if he's living within the rural centre, you have two or three streets which are relatively easily patrolled. The incidence of patrolling is fractional in the city compared to the incidence of patrolling on the highways, and that's what really accounts for the difference. But

that does ind icate, and I thank the member for the question, it does tend to corroborate what I was saying earlier about how there are probably a lot more, many more, incidents of impaired driving than the number who are apprehended, and those would probably be substantially more in the city than on the highw ay. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Attorney-General indicate roughly the numb er of polic emen per thousand population in rural Manitoba, as compared to the police in urban areas? HON. R. PENNER: Actually it's about even. MR. H. GRAHAM: About the same? HON. R.

PENNER: lt's about the same because, you see, you have in Winnipeg, 1,016 is the total force, some administrative personnel, but let's just take that as roughly the numb er for close to 600,000 population. The RCMP, plus special constables, would be close to 600; but then, if you take Brandon and some of the other const abular y, you can see that there's a reasonable proportion. MR. H. GRAHAM: That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 2.(b)( 1)-p ass - The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on another matter. 1 have before me a form letter, I take it, that the Attorney General sent out on March 15th of this year to people who wrote to him about the change in charges against Dr. Morgentaler and others. In the third paragraph of this letter , the Attorney-General states, that "after the prel iminary hearing, it was possible for the officials of the Crown to assess the evidence. They advised me that there appeared to be a strong case agains t Dr. Morgentaler and two others on the charge of actually procuring abortions.

In the light of that Information, I exercised my duty to ensure a fair trial and I directed that the trial proceed on the substantive charge. Is the statement that "they advised me, etc.," is that a true statement? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I never there, or at any other time, that my officials said, ch arge this way rather than that way; that wasn't their function. Their function was to draw to my attention all of the elements that the Crown had available to it in prosecuting a case and step by step mt officials were very responsible in doing that.

After the first raid exercise of police warrants on the Morgentaler Clinic and an examination of the records, it seems that there was a case that could be made with respect to conspi racy, but not nearly as strong a case, inde ed proba bly, not certainly but probably, not a case at all with respect to procuring.

Following the second raid, when presumably there had been much more activity within the clinic, the results of that raid, and further police investigation and inter views - and I want to be careful here because the matter is still before the courts so I'm not going to 492 make any assessment of the weight of evidence - but certainly there was enough material available as a result of the second raid and police Investigation for officials to be able to say that what was lacking, after the first raid, was available after the secon d raid, in terms of laying the cha rge of procu ring.

They made no recommendations to me one way or another, but presented, I think in a very responsible way, what the results of the investigation were; what information was available to them; what assessment they were able to make about the weight of evidence. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on Wednesd ay, January 11, 1984, in Debates and Proceed ings, Page 5483, in response to a question from me, the Attorn ey General indicated, "Within the scope of my duty, I had no recommendation one way or another from my senior officials, nor did I ask for one, because that was a responsibili ty which must rest with myself." Was that a true statement? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I think that pretty well conforms with the answer I gave a few moments ago. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on Friday, Januar y 13, 1984, in Hansard, Page 5549, in response to a question from me, the Attorney-General indicated, ". . . the matter was discussed with the law officers of the Crown in which I advised them of the course I proposed to take . . . "Is that a true statement? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I'm generally in the habit, I may say, of making true statements. If I make statements which are incorrect then it's inadvertent. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, in the Free Press of December 10, 1983, the Attorney-General is quoted as saying that he made his decision to drop the conspiracy charges after reading a massive transcript of the October prelim inary hearing. Is that correct? HON. R. PENNER: That's the timing of it, yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that this incident appears to violate an old maxim that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

We have a situation in this ins tance where the Attorney General has a well-known personal position, and the New Democratic Party, itself, has a well-known policy position in favour of abortion on demand. In reviewing the history of this matter, in a news

article going back to the Winn ipeg Free Press, going back to Monda y, November 1, 1982, the Attorney-General is quoted as saying in the letter to Dr. Morgentaler, that there's likely to t:.J such pressure for prosecution that it would not be possible or desirable for me to direct a stay of proceedings. One question that is raised in my mind and certainly In a number of people's minds is whether or not, or since when does the Attorney-G eneral's Department begin prosecution because of pressure . A news

article on June 15, 1983 in the Sun ind icates Dr. Morgentaler stated that he was making an appeal to the Attor ney-General to dr op the charges of conspiracy against all the staff. But on June 2, 1983 in response to a question from myself in which I said,

Monday, 7 May, 1984 did the Attorney-General indicate whether he will be dealing with this matter personally or will the matter be handled by the Director of Prosec utions. The Attorney-General ind icated that the matter will be handled by the Director of Prosecutions. In the Free Press on March 4, 1983, he confirmed that. He said, I will not intervene in the legal process.

Conspiracy charges were subsequentally laid, the same charges that were laid in the Province of Ontario - charges which, I believe, are still proceeding there - the accused were committed for trial after a preliminary hearing by a judge who said that on the basis of the evidence before him, they were likely to be convicted. Then we have the personal intervention of the Attorney-General who dropped all of the conspiracy charges. We have the comment for the defence counsel that the change in charges will assist the accused and generally enhance Dr. Morgentaler's acquittal. Mr.

Chairman, we have certainly made suggestions that the change in charges was politically motivated. We have news articles which quote representatives of the pro-choice movement stating that the Attorney General can still decide not to proceed with the charges. That's what the coalition representatives told the NDP caucus in a long overdue meeting held October 13, 1983. Mr. Chairman, all of these facts, I suggest, with respect to this incident, bring the administration of justice in Manitoba into disr epute.

We have a personal intervention of the Attorney-General without seeking a recommendation from his staff, contrary to previous statements that the Director of Prosecutions would handle the matter, combined with his own personal views and the NDP policy, and statements that he was under pressure to prosecute, resulting in a change in charges despite the accused having been committed for trial on the original charges that were laid, the same charges as in the Province of Ontario.

A her the NDP caucus met with a pressure group and defence counsel, indicating that the change in charges will benefit the accused, lead almost inescapably to the conclusion that the admini stration of justice in Manitoba has been adversely affected and brought into disrepute. 1t certainly has lead, Mr.

Chairman, a large number of Manitobans to lack confidence in the actions of this Attorney-General, when the statements and actions appear to be contradictory, when he personally changes charges which would appear to support his personal views and NDP philosophy despite the accused persons having been convicted for trial. I think this, Mr. Chairman, is an extremely serious matter and a black mark on the record of this Attorney General.

My immediate question to him is why, having said in response to a question to me that the matter would be handled by the Director of Prosecutions, why did he not leave the matter as he said he would in the hands of the Director of Prosecutions? HON. R. PENNER: That is a very long and involved question and I don't propose to get into a lengthy discussion or debate with the Member for St. Norbert but certainly it deserves and answer.

The particular issue, of course, is one which splits our commun ity and indeed the national community and is a very high-profile issue that involves fundamental 493 questions of public policy; that's a high-profile issue. By it's very nature when a charge is laid, particularly involving the highest profile person that one can think of in that high-profile issue, then the Attorney-General of whatever province where that happens to be the case is going to be the subject of a lot of lobbying. 1 was. I was lobbied formidably on both sides of the issue.

Indeed there may be three or four sides and I was lobbied formidably on all sides of the issue but 1 determined from the beginning in accordance with my Oath of Office, that I would act entirely on my own within my constitutional responsibilities. Certainly let me say here categorically, that at no time was the path that was to be taken with respect to the prosecution of this, the subject of a discussion in Executive Council or in caucus, at no time did Executive Council or caucus purport even impliedly to suggest what the Attorney General should do.

Let's get that out of the way completely. · Indeed the representations to which the member refers that were made to caucus, as I recollect, they were representations that were made with respect to the general issue but insofar as it touched upon the legal issue raised the question of the dropping of charges altogether. The member has noted and it was appropriate for him to do so - although he didn't do so sufficiently in my view - right from the very beginning, when Dr.

Morgentaler wrote me and said that he plans to come here and open a clinic and could I grant him immun ity, I said categorically, without any hesitation, no, and that the law would take its course with respect to that matter as it would with respect to any other matter. So, first of all, I'm saying I acknowledge sole responsibility for the steps that were taken.

But as the matter developed there became a point where a decision had to be made, because the material was there upon which that decision was to be made, of public policy generally in the area of criminal prosecutions and not just relating to the abortion issue. That is, whether or not, where there's an option to proceed, either by way of conspiracy or the direct charge should be laid rather than conspiracy because as the Member for St.

Norbert knows, or ought to know from his experience, most of the judges of the realm - or at least of this part of the realm, the judges of this country - are very much opposed to both a conspiracy charge and a substantive charge being laid. They really say that that's unfair. lt's either one or the other. I formed the view that where, and indeed I will readily admit that I've always been of that view, that as a matter of public policy, where you have as strong a case and a substantive charge as you do in a conspiracy charge, then one ought to proceed for a whole variety of reasons on the substantive charge.

Now, what defence counsel said ex post facto, as to this making their life easier, is a matter for them and not for me, I don't think, frankly, that it does. There's an assumption in everything that the Member for St. Norbert has said, that somehow or other it is easier for the defendants to meet the direct charge, than it was the conspiracy charge. I'm not at all satisfied that that is so. What I do believe is that it is easier to Identify the fundamental issues of public policy which must be add ressed where the charge is the direct charge and

MondalC, 7 May, 1184 not the indirect charge. Indirect charges are often the vehicle, whether intentionally or not, for evading the issues that have to be addressed . Since I formed the view, and I'll come back to that in a moment in terms of timing, that the one charge was as strong as the other, indeed in many ways I think stronger, so that the accused could raise the fundamental defence issues which they wished to raise, so those could be adjudicated on in the Province of Manitoba and not left in doubt that that is what ought to be done.

Finally, in terms of timing, I was aware obviously because I was advised that that was the case. I believe on the day that the preliminary began, or at the most two days before the preliminary began, that the Crown would attempt to put before the judge the conspiracy case and let the evidence go in because in doing that, that would maxim ize the amount of evidence that could be put in and assessed. I did not at any moment say this was a recommendation from my senior officals saying, no, I don't want you to do that.

I said, fine thank you for informing me, I will wait. lt wasn't until I received the transcript of the preliminary and read it, every blessed page of it, in order to see what the case for the Crown was, and in order to address a question of public policy in public prosecutorial policy, which is a matter for the Attorney-General and not for senior officials, that I made the decision and I made it on my own that the direct endictment on the substantive charges should be laid and the conspiracy charges stayed.

That is the fundamental history of the matter and any other inference that there was a meeting of caucus, at which one of many lobby groups appeared and that somehow magically in some juxtaposition to that, the change was made, is belied by the sequence of events, the timing. If you will remind me, the Member for St. Norbert, I don't have it before me - when was the preliminary? Not until the spring or the late winter, January or February? When was my decision made? My decision was made and annou nced after the preliminary. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, can the Attorney General indicate or confirm that the Attorney-General's Department in Ontario are proceeding on conspiracy charges? HON. R. PEN NER: Ye s, although even there it's different, and accordingly it's not possible for me to assess what evidence th e Attorney -Gener al's Department in Ontario has with respect to actual abortions, I don't know. But I do know that when the conspiracy charge was laid in Ontario, as a matter of public policy there, it was laid against three individuals only, a Dr. Scott, Dr. Morgentaler and one other. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I must, in view of the Attorney-General's answer in which he clearly states that he acted on his own, that he acknowledges full responsibility, that he confirms that he did not seek any recommendations from his department; who, accord ing to his previous statement, took sole responsibility for the original charges and conducted the preliminary hearing on which the accused were committed for trial; in view of all the facts that I refer 494 to, his personal position, the NDP policy, the fact that having said that the Di rector of Prosecutions would handle the matter and then intervening in the matter on his own, as he said, combined with the comments of the defence counsel, etc., certainly have caused, amongst many people in Manitoba, a genuine concern that the Attorney-General has personally manipulated the charges to benefit the accused to accommoda te his personal views and that of his party.

I say, for the reco rd, Mr. Chairman, that he should have followed his original statement and left this matter in the hands of the Director of Prosecutions and not caused the very grave concern that exists in the minds of many people in Ma nitoba with respect to th e administration of this prosecution and his personal intervention in the matte r. HON. R. PENNER: I would have just two concluding remarks.

First of all, with respect to my personal views, I must say I do resent that very much because, for anyone who wants to take the trouble - why would they, it's all so trivial? - of looking at my personal views with respect to a whole gamut of matters in terms of, let's take one, the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. I appeared at the defence bar on leading cases, in seminars and speeches to my classes in the Law School, arguing what might traditionally be thought to be the civil libertarian approach with respect to those sections of the Criminal Code.

As Attorney-General, I have taken one of the strongest positions in this country with respect to obscenity, to the extent where I am, at least indirectly, attacked by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and MARL. I don't think I need a lecture about allowing my personal views to interfere with what I think to be the right thing to do. That's No. 1. No. 2, look, an Attorney-General, the Crown Attorneys, the most senior of them, the Director of Prosecutions down, are agents of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General, ulti mately, is where it stops and bears the responsibility for prosecutorial policy.

I said right at the very beginning, when I assumed office, and I have hewed to that position with one or two exceptions, and I will mention another exception. I said, when I assumed the office, that I, in the normal course, do not want to be involved in the prosecution side of the department. We've got competent officials and it is for them, ulti mately, to carry out the day-to day; and they do and they do it very well. They have received no hectoring from me, they have received no instructions from me, they have received no directives, no missives, no raps on the knuckles, and they know that. They feel free.

When it comes to appeals and so on there, too. I remem ber, as a member of the defence bar, having expressed certain criticisms about what I then, as a memb er of the defence bar, thought to be the policy with respect to sentence appeals on the part of the Crown, and there, too, the record will justify that I do not interfere with the day-to-day. But there are times - thank God few of them - where, as Attorney-General, and a matter of public policy emerges of such dimensions I have to take a position, I will take it and let history be my judge. The other incident, in which the Member for St.

No rbert when he was the Attorney-General was

Mondq 7 May, 1984 involved, had to do with, again, the Attorney-General taking a position, in a sense, contrary to what the courts did at a preliminary - the member is familiar when there were several charges of fraud and so on laid against Play All, and some individuals connected with Play All, and connected with other concerns, alleging that they defrauded Kinsmen, through the Kinsmen Bingo, of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That was investigated by the commercial fraud people and, ultimately, on the basis of evidence, a several charges were laid, a preliminary was held and the judge at the preliminary dismissed the whole case. He said that's it, not enough to go to trial, forget it. At that point, and this was still when the Member for St. Norbert was the Attorney-General, the senior officials came to the Attorney-General and said, in effect, we think that there is a strong case here, it's a shame that this isn't proceeded with.

I am not quoting, of course, but they came, in any event, to the Attorney General and asked him to use his power under the Code to directly indict. The Attorney-General, the Member for St. Norbert, didn't do that; he said let some judge decide. And what did the judge say? The judge, in effect, said it's not for me, it's for the Attorney General. So he quashed the application that was made to him, as a judge, saying it's the responsibility given, in the first instance, by the Criminal Code to the Attorney-General. By that time, the election had taken place.

As it happened, I was elected, appointed Attorney-General, the same officials came to me and said, this is where the matter now stands, what are you going to do? I looked over the evidence, again, perused the transcript, most, not all of the transcript, it was a yard high, and came to the conclusion indeed that there was a case which ought to be presented to the courts and I made the decision, direct indictment. So it wasn't the first time with the Morgentaler case that I had exercised that prerogative, but it's been damn few. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr .

Chairman, the Attorney General's recollection of the latter incident is almost correct.

I simply point out, for the record, that in response to my inquiries officials indicated that there appeared to be an alternative to the procedure that they had recommended, and it appeared that the superior court judge could be asked to review the evidence from the preliminary hearing and determine or make a recommendation with respect to a direct indictment. lt turned out that, at least the particular judge that the matter went to did not wish to do that, but it appeared at the time that was an alternate procedure that could be used since being found out that obviously, in view of the decision that was made, that that is not an appropriate procedure.

I would simply ask, and the Attorn ey-General may have answered this, is there any other prosecution during his tenure in which he has intervened, in his words, which he has acted on his own and acknowledges sole responsibility? HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I would just like to comment on this particular line of questioning that the Member for St.

Norbert is pursuing. 495 I guess the question that arises in my mind, listening to the discussion, is with the implication that the decision was made because of the Attorney-General's personal preference, if the decision he made had been the opposite or if the Member for St. Norbert was still in the position of Attorney-General and made the opposite decision, would the Member for St. Norbert then accept the opinion of committee that his decision was made because of his well-known personal preference and bias, if he had ended up making the opposite decision than the present Attorney-General has made.

I think he should dwell on that somewhat before he makes that kind of assumption. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair reminds the Member for Wolseley that the questions are supposed to be directed to the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: The present Attorney-General. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I thought you were going to accuse me of being hypothetical. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)(1)- pass; 2.(b)(2)- pass. Resolution No. 19: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $5, 566,000 for Attorney-General, Legal Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1985- pass.

The Chair is relieved; we at least finished one section. We now go to Item No. 3.(a)( 1) and 3.(a)(2) which relates to Boards and Commissions, Manitoba Law Reform Commission: Salaries, Other Expenditures. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I note, in a release issued by the Attorney-General on January 27, 1984, that the former Dean of the Law School, Clifford Edwards, was reappointed for a further three year term commencing July 1, 1984. That is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, because I think he's done an excel lent job.

However, the release goes on to refer to the seven person commission, and I believe the Attorney-General indicated in his remarks that there will be a reduction in the size of the commission from seven to five. I wonder if he could indicate whether that will be -I don't believe it's in legislat ion, but a certain number have been lawyers and a certain number have been lay persons appointed to the commission. Can he indicate what the split will be in the future with this seven-person commission and who will be relieved of their duties? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, there's no one really being relie ved of th eir duties.

One of the incumb ents, Professor Trevor Anderson, has been appointed Dean of the Law School and that position is inconsisent with his function on the Law Reform Commission in point of view of time, and he's asked to be relieved and will be relieved effective July 1, by which time I hope to have the legislation reducing size from seven to five before the House. lt will probably appear in Statute Law Amendments, but there it will be. What's happened is there are some vacancies. Sister Mac died; a great loss to the province and to the commission and has not been replaced, and Anne Riley

Monday, 7 .._,, 1184 resigned and has not been replaced, she's gone to London, Ontario, the University of Western Ontario, so we're down to a live-person commission now. So the recommendation from Professor Edwards is that when Professor And ers on's resignation takes affect, I consider appointing another legal acad emic. That request will be conside red but no decision has been made. I'm considering one other possibility.

In fact, I think I can say now, because there is an Order-in-Council, very recent vintage, the balance of the commission in terms of male/female was changed with the passing of Sister Mac and the resignation of Anne Riley. I'm changing Judge Richard Thompson, who's a member of the committee, will no longer be a member of the commission and I'm appointing Lee Gibson as a lay person and, obviously, a woman. MR. G. MERCIER: Excluding the chairman, then, what will the ratio be between lawyers? Would it be three lawyers and one lay person then? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that will be the ratio init ially.

We'll take a look down the line as other vacancies come up. I should know the mem bers of the commission. But presently it's Richard Thompson, Knox Foster, Cliff Edwards, Trevor Anderson until the 30th of June, and Judge Lockwood - "Gimli" Lockwood, we call him - so those are the five. The change from those five will be a lay person for a lawyer. MR. G. MERCIER: I notice that there is a reduction of some $20,000 in Other Expenditures for the Law Reform Commission.

I think most members of the House would concur that the Law Reform Commission has performed a valuable service for a numb er of years in their review and recommendations for legislation, and they've probably been more successful than any other Provincial Law Reform Commission - certainly much more successful than the Federal Law Reform Commission - in having recommendations adopted in the form of legislation.

I would be concerned that perhaps in this instance for the matter of a few thousand dollars, the work of the commission will be restricted; probably the fact that the number of commissione rs is reduced, is going to restrict to some degree, the work of the Law Reform Commission. I believe the members of this commission do a lot of work, do a lot of reading, spend a lot of time at it, so they'll be reduced by two members and then there would appear to be a reduction in Other Expenditur es and probably the bulk of those moneys, as I recollect, was used to hire additional research persons on specific projects.

Could the Attorney-General ind icate as a result of this cut in expenditur es and in the number of commissioners, whether the work of the Law Reform Commission will be rest ricted during the forthcoming year? HON. R. PENNER: I'm satisfied that it won't be. The member's recollection is correct, that the bulk of the Other Expendit ures is to hire outside consultants. But what has happened is that our lull-time staff have improved enormously .

The longer they're at the job, the better they become as researchers, indeed they've 496 come with very very high commendations from Cliff Edwards and they're simply able to do more work and better work than was hither to the case. I would have, of course, liked to have kept a few more dollars available for outside consultants. I'm satisfied, however, that we can operate on this somewhat trimmed down basis just as efficiently as we've operated In past years. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)( 1)- pass; 3.(a)( 2)-pass. 3.(b)( 1) - The Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I think the Attorney General had indi cated he hadn't asked a representative from the Human Rights Commission to be here this evening. If it's agreeable to the committee, I would suggest we go on to (c)( d)(

e) and (

f) and then when we begin again, that the Human Rights Commission could be here. · · HON. R. PENNER: Okay, good. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there agreement among the committee members? We'll proceed and skip to 3.(d )(1) and 3.(d)(2) which Is Manitoba Police Commission: Salaries; Other Expenditur es. HON. R. PENNER: No, 3.(c). What about Criminal Injuries? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry. We skipped that one. 3.(

c) Canada-Manitoba Criminal Injur ies, Compensation Board - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the last report for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, this one that's indi cated 1982? HON. R. PENNER: I believe that's the last one that I have but I'll check. I have a recollection of filing a later one in the House, but I guess not. That will be checked and I'll have an answer tomorrow. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, a concern that we've expressed for a number of years has been with respect to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is that many victims of crime are not aware of their right to claim compensation under the Act. Could the Attorney General indi cate what steps he or the board have been taking to inform the public of the awareness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and their right to claim compensation? HON. R.

PENNER: I think the member is probably aware of the Victim Witness Assistance Program which had its origins at the time that the member was Attorne y-General, although I don't think it got fully launched until a few months alter the November, 1981 election, and that Victim Witness Assistance Project wh1ch operates at Public Safety and at 373 Broa dway, is the primary vehicle we use to assist victims of crime in a number of ways, not the least of which is advising them of their rights un der the Cri minal Inju ries Compensation scheme. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3.(c)-pass. 3.(d)( 1) and 3.(d)(2) which is Manitoba Police Commission: Salaries, Other Expenditur es.

Monda� 7 May, 1984 The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe the reduction in salaries would be due then to the decision made so far not to replace the Executive Director. HON. R. PENNER: Sub stantially, that's right. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Estimate of Expenditur es include the hearing or inquiry which the Attorney General has ordered into the incident on October 28th? I'm led to believe that hearing may go on as long as four days with counsel. Do these Estimates anticipate that type and that length of a hearing? HON. R. PENNER: Regrettably not.

These expenditures only account for what I regret will be a fraction of the cost that we now anticipate. These things have a habit of growing and they seem to grow expedientially in some kind of relationship to the number of lawyers involved. I knew we were in for trouble, financially speaking, when I began to see the growing list of lawyers.

Everybody who has even a remote connection with that hearing has decided that they must be facing a frightening experience, something akin to the Spanish Inquisition, because they've run for the most expensive lawyers that they can find and the more expensive lawyer - let me rephrase that. With some lawyers, expensive or not, there is a tendency perhaps because they're taking every possible step to protect the interest of their clients, to take steps which lead to a prolongation of the particular trial or inquiry.

Seriously, this is assuming fairly substantial proportions and we haven't got enough money in the Estimates to cover the cost. So what I propose to do is to delay payment of the bills until sometime after the next election and see which way it goes. MR. G. ME RCIER: Mr . Chairman, there were representations made in January, I believe, that the commission should delay its hearing until after the people who are facing charges as a result of the demonstration - until those charges are dealt with. Was the decision to proceed the decision of the Police Commission or of the Attorney-General? HON. R.

PENNER: I received , indeed formally - I think formally and informally, but it was formal - only one request to deal with the quite apparent problem that arises when you have criminal charges and an inquiry arising out of the same incident.

As the member knows this type of thing is dealt with in an analogous way in The Fatalities Inquiries Act and since it was inordinately difficult to get all cou nsel , the Mani toba Pol ice Commission and its counsel and hearing space and time together for the hearing, I made the decision that, in answer to a formal request, that I would adjourn the criminal proceedings or instruct the adjournment of the application; or more appropriately we would not oppose an application for adjourning the criminal proceed ings till later in the sum mer. So criminal proceedings were due to take place in June.

We were not at all satisfied that the inquiry itself would be over in June, so we accepted the notion of an adjournment of the criminal matters till August and perhaps Septem ber. 497 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has referred to the inconvenience or difficulty of arranging a date suitable to all counsel involved . HON. R. PENNER: Counsel, witnesses. MR. G. MERCIER: . . . counsel, witnesses, etc. Does he not consider it more important in a situation like this that the criminal charges should be dealt with first, prior to the inquiry? Does he not have any concern that there might be some? HON.

R.

PENNER: I really don't know in terms of the relationship of one to the other, which is preferable. lt seemed to me that, in many ways, where given the relatively large cost of the running of the inquiry - the number of issues that would be addressed there, the number of counsel that would be involved - that indeed in many ways that might provide an assist to the criminal trial later on in terms of an examination of a lot of evidence. lt may be - may be I don't know - it may be that it turns out relatively easier for our Crown Attorneys in running the case to have the benefit of the material that will be made available through the inquiry.

MR. G. MERCIER: The role of the Police Commission, Mr. Chairman, subseq uently will be basically an appeal body then, will it not, under The Law Enforcement Review Act, or to hold these types of inquiries when directed? HON. R. PENNER: Actual ly, we've ha d many discussions over the last year with members of the Manitoba Police Commission as to its future role and we're really looking down the line at a much larger role, particularly in crime prevention programs. Crime prevention programs have been a bit helter skelter.

They've been organized in a way around an event, Crime Prevention Month, and becomes sort of a focal point, but that's one month out of 12. Our Crime Prevention Officer, Lorne Gregorash, who's acting as Executive Director of the Commission, has done a good job, but as one individual in going around helping communities. I think we need to do more in crime prevention.

So both with respect to crime prevention and with respect to be ginning to est ablish standa rds for recruiting and training police officers to assist all police forces in the province in that way, these are two areas of responsibility which we see devel oping. In terms of its appellate function it will be rather minimal.

Certainly under The Law Enforcement Review Act it has a very minimal appell ate function just to deal with those matters which are dismis sed at first instance as being frivolous and vexatious; I don't expect much of that will come up before the Manitoba Police Commission. lt will still of course have some appellate function to those matters of police discipline which don't relate to citizens' complaints. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.( dX1)-p ass; 3.(dX2)-p ass. 3.(dX 1) relates to Manitoba Police Commission: Salaries and Other Expenditur es.

We now go to 3.(eX 1) and 3.(eX2), Board of Review: Salar ies and Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert.

lloncMJ, 7 ..., ; 1114 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General in his opening statement again indic ated a reduction in the num ber of members of the Board of Review. Will that be a citizen mem ber and can the Attorney-General also indicate how many individual cases the Board of Review presently has under its jurisdiction? HON. R. PENNEA: Yes, there's 21 cases that it has basically in its bailiwick and the member who had ind icated a wish to resign from the Board of Review - and it was just a decision not to replace - was a lay person. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3. (eX 1)-p ass; 3.(eX2). which relates to Board of Review: Salaries and Other Expenditures pass. 3. (f)( 1) ; 3. (f)(2), Law Enforcement Review Act: Salaries, Other Expenditures - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General referred to the fact that the Estima tes at the present time provide for two staff person years, could the Attorney-General ind icate the amount of the salary that will be paid to the Chief Executive Officer, whatever that person is called?

Will there be public advertising or will that be an appointment through the Civil Service Commission or will tha t be an Orde r-in-Council appointment? HON. R. PEN NER: That is an Order-in-Council appointment. MR. G. MERCIER: What sort of salary is the Attorney General looking at? HON. R. PENNER: Pegged to the salary of a Provincial Court Judge MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General expect that to be a full-time position? HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, I expect that it will be, based on information supplied to me from the Vancouver experience, you know, reduced in scale to Manitoba, or essentially really Winnipeg proportions, and the Toronto experience from the Commissioner, Syd Linden. lt's a guess and it may be a year before we really know. lt's an Order-in-Council appointment and can be adjusted, if necessary. The salary portion this year will be part - part salary because it's part of the year. I don't think we'll really know what the scale of activity will be.

The numb er of matters that were dealt with by the internal review mechanism in the City of Winni peg Police, in the last year for which I have statistics, were somewhere about 260, 270, not all of them involving, however, citizen's complaints. Whether the opening of an accessible office will change that number, I don't know. lt has been the case, of course, that the Manitoba Police Commission has dealt with matters that come from other departments, Brandon, Morden, Winkler or Steinbach, I don't know, from other places. We'll just have to wait and see. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3.(fX 1), 3.(fX2), Law Enforcement Review Act: Salaries and Other Expenditures- pass. Since we have not dealt with the Human Rights Commission, with the concurrence of the members of the committee, we cannot read the resolution to this section, so we go to . . . 498 MR. G. MERCIER: Committee rise? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection? Committee rise. SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Commit tee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. Does the Mi nis ter have an opening statement? I • ' HON. A.

MACKLiNG: I thought someone was going to say "pass." Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I'm delighted, once again, to have the privilege and the honour of representing the Department of Natural Resources in the presentation of our Estimates for the fiscal year 1984-85. I say it is a privilege bold an honour because, in the time that I have been the Minister of "'atural Resources, I've come to appreciate not only the complexity of the workings of the department, but ever increasingly to appreciate the excellence of the staff of the Department of Natural Resources.

I want to put on the record, in a formal way, my appreciation for the dedic ated efforts of my Deputy Min ister, Mr. Nick Carter; my Assistant Deputy Ministers, and I don't know in which way I rank them in seniority, but certainly, Mr. Dale Stewart and Derek Doyle, both Assistant Deputy Minis ters; and all of the branch managers. A good number of those persons will be appearing here during the course of the Estimates and will be of assistance, not only to me, but to the committee, in dealing with the detail of the Estimates.

I notice, the Honou rable Member from Pembina has some humour to introduc e already and I like that, quite frank ly, Mr. Chairman, because I think it should be possible for us, as Mem bers of the Legislature, to deal in a reasonable but forthright way, with an evaluation of the Estimates. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh HON. A. MACKLING: Well, the honourable member says don't take things personally. I think all of us have the same thickne ss of skin.

There are some people in society that have developed what they think are thicker political skins, but I think we're all human in that respect, and I think the Honourable Memb er for Pembina is just as vulnerable, but I won't, Mr. Chairman, lower myself to debate that with him. I could, Mr. Chairman, spend a good deal of the commit tee's time in reviewing the highli ghts of the Estimates, but I think that it will be possible for members to take a good look at significant areas of concern within each of the branches without my spending a good deal of members' time doing that.

I would, however, be remiss if I didn't ind icate something of my concerns in respect to sections of the

Mender. 7 May, 1884 department that have received a good deal of my attent ion, personal ly, in the past year and our expectations for further progress in this next fiscal year. In respect to the Parks Branch and I'll start with them, not in order of my personal priority, but as one of my ongoing concerns, is to see the development of Beaudry Park which, as members will recall, is a park that is to the imm ediate west of Winnipeg, beyond Headingly, a very beautiful, natural park area that we hope can be developed to be a further jewel in our parks crown in Manitoba.

Additionally, as I've indicated in response to questions by the Member for Emerson, and certainly has been known for some time, the Parks Branch has established a park reserve in the east of Lake Winnipeg area, encompassing primarily the Bloodvein River, but a couple of other rivers there, known as Atikaki. lt is hoped that we will be able to develop a very significant park in that area, the prominent feature of which will be wilderness, but that's not to say that there will not be a probability of the continuance of all of those uses that are presently being made of the area in which the park will be located.

In respect to other areas of Manitoba, members are certainly familiar with the progress to date in respect to development of a park system plan and I have a very colourful brochure; I'm sure it's been available to members - I will seek to have sufficient copies of that available for members - highlighting the interest areas within Manitoba from a potential of additional park enhancement. In respect to other park planning, members will recall that the Grassy River Park is very much in development, as is, Hecla and Sp ruce Woods.

These park management plans take time to formulate, there's a good deal of consultation that's required. it's a relatively slow process, but one that, I think, honourable members can feel satisfied, represents the best way in which to formulate management plans. Passing on quickly to Water Resources Branch. We have under that branch continued initiatives in respect to further developing the concept of water resource conservation rather than an emphasis on drainage.

Drainage is necessary in much of our land mass to enhance agricultural production, but with drainage comes further problem, the problem generally downstream of the drained area, a continuing problem in respect to the long term use of those resources because, as I've ind icated in other remarks in this Chamber, I'm concerned about the extent to which we are physically drying out our land base. I'm concerned about the continuance of recharge into ground water and so on. I'm advised, Mr. Chairman. that staff are waiting. May staff enter at this time? MR.

CHAIRMAN: Not until after the ministerial opening and the critics response. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!. HON. A. MACKLING: Well. I appreciate all the help I can get from honourable members and others, Mr. Chairman. Hon oura ble members will know that the Water Commission, in its report in respect to the Oak and 499 Plum Lakes, made recommendations and, pursuant to those recommendations, a management board has been establis hed which I believe will ensure the enhanced use of Oak and Plum Lakes from a full-use concept.

Agriculture, wildlife and other recreational resources will be enhanced by effective management of that resource. I could go on at some length in connection with Water Resource matters, but I'll pass quickly, Mr. Chairman, because some honourable members may be becoming rested if I go into too much detail. The honourable member asks, I will say that the Water Commission's findings, their recommendations, have been brought forward. I have had an opportunity to look at the preliminary draft, I've looked at it, I've found the recommendations very interesting.

I won't comment on them at this stage, the report will be made public and members will have an opportunity to question. In respect to Fisheries Branch. Ongoing activities there in cc;mnection with the enhancement of the fisheries. I want - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Chairman, I do think that some of my remarks might be helpful to honourable members, but if the Honourable Member for Arthur wishes to present the department, I'd appreciate him doing that on another occasion, and certainly not trying to do it tonight.

I'm sure that he considers himself an expert in all areas, and I'm sure that on another night he can do that. In respect to Fisheries, a couple of the rather interesting developments, we had a trial program in the Portage Diversion raising pickerel fingerlings, and over a million fry were introduced to the Portage Diversion. This was an idea that was conceived by our regional water manager and discussions with the Fisheries Branch, and we were very very pleased at the success rate that appeared to occur. A very high percentage of the pickerel fry emerged as healthy fingerlings for release into Lake Manitoba.

Because of that very successful experiment we're not only looking at doing that again, in the Portage Diversion, but we're also looking, and we are going to experiment this year with the Red River Diversion, to see whether or not a similar pickerel fingerling rearing program might be successful.

Also, as members may recall, I've had interest by many people over the course of many months in respect to multiple use of floodway area, like the Red River Floodway, and I anticipate that there will be some potential for enhancement of wildlife along the course of the Red River Floodway by some, not massive changes, but some significant changes in allowing vegetation to develop in proximity to the floodway for nesting wildfowl. - (Interjection) - Yes, I hear them flying now. In respect to Forestry, I won't dwell at any length with that.

I think honourable members will recall the initiatives that have been announced during the course of the year, particularly the highlight for me, Mr. Chariman, was the formal dedication, the formal opening of the Clearwater Nursery, at which time, my colleague, the Honourable Harry Harapiak, officiated in a formal opening. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, that nursery will provide a capacity for reforestation, in particular, the

Monchly, 7 May, 1114 northern part of Manitoba, that is badly needed. We have, I believe it is, some six greenhouses in being now, it may be eight, they've gone up so quickly I don't recall. The final count will be 20 greenhouses. They are wood fueled and there will be 4 million seedlings produced when the greenhouses are fully complete. They will also have some shade structures.

The shade structures, I should say, have been conceived and developed by our own staff and they appear to be so attractive that others from other parts of Canada are coming to look at the structures from the point of view of emulating the technique that's being used. I'm very, very proud of that. In addition, as honourable members will recall in respect to forestry, we signed the agreement with the Federal Government. A total of $27 million will be inv ested in forest ry, and that will provide some significant benefits to Manitoba. The Wildlife Branch.

Now I, as members will recall, have been involved in going out and talking within communiti es in Manitoba, travelled extensively, listening to the views of, not only members of wildlife federations, but ind ividual citizens, farmers, to have their views in respect to wildlife management. As a result of those dialogues, as they have been termed, staff have brought to me recommendations for specific changes, and seasons, and wildlife management programs which we believe will be very helpful.

Included in that will be a package dealing with hunting safety, because, as honourable members will recall, significant effort has been made over the course of the years to enhance hunting safety. That is an area of ongoing concern, and we have some specific recommendations coming forward short ly. I think, Mr.

Chairman, and not to indicate any lack of priority or importance to any other parts of the program, I could talk at some length on many other of the aspects of the department including Lands Branch, including Wild Rice Program and so on, but 1 think, honourable members may be relatively familiar with a lot of those initia tives, and rather than talk at lengtti on them, I will make my remarks very brief so that staff can come and the opposition critic can get on with a specific focus, if he wishes, on any aspect.

I would be remiss however, if I didn't mention, give some particular attention to our ongoing concerns in respect to Garrison. The Honourable Memb er for Emerson and I, hopefully, will be going to Washington this coming Sunday to meet with some key people in the American Senate, and perhaps members of the Admi nistration as well, to register this province's continuing concern in respect to the Garrison Diversion Project. Members will recall that in recent days, the committee that was set up under the aegis of both the Garrison proponents and the Federal Government, and the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation, have met and reviewed the Garrison undertakings. We have consistently taken the position as Government of Mani toba, tha t the International Joint Commission's findings must be maintained. As a result of that, we have insisted that there be no diversion, no use of Missouri River water out of the Lonetree Reservoir, in any manner that would provide any flows into the Hudson Bay Watershed. While the proponents for some time had dropped the concern and the need for a screen to filter Missouri water coming into Lonetree, they now apparently have agreed to its reintroduction.

They have also agreed that in one of the plans that they had for the Lonetree Dam itself for an industrial and municipal water supply which would take water from the Lonetree Reservoir directly into the Cheyenne River for assistance or additional flow to the Cheyenne River primarily for the downstream communities of Fargo - I think it's Fargo - that the plug that had been provided for in that dam, which was a rather fragile looking thing according to the plans that we saw, would be made more permanent.

The committee also agreed that the Int ernational Joint Commission's condition that there be no fishing on Lonetree Reservoir would be honoured. One of the most significant things that was indicated by way of an understanding - not a formal agreement, but an understanding at that meeting - was that the proponents of Garrison, the administration, would actively consider altern ates to Phase 2, in which presently irrigation of waters within the Hudson Bay Watershed is planned.

That is a significant departure, the admission that they would consider alternatives, because as honou rable members will know, there is approximately 200,000 acres within the Hudson Bay Watershed that would be subject to irrigat ion. I may stand to be corrected on the exar;t acreage, it's somewhat less than 200,000 acres. But as proponents of Garr ison have ind icated and somewhat reluctantly and somewhat belatedly, within the Missouri Watershed itself, approximate to the Garrison Development and the McCiusky Canal System, there is over a million acres that is available for irrigation.

So there is no overwhelming necessity at all for irrigation of lands within the Hudson Bay Watershed. There are ample dry lands in North Dakota that could benefit by irrigation to the south of the natural divide, utilizing that Missouri water and utilizing the Lonetree Reservoir as a reservoir. So it's with some degree of hope and expectation that we continue our opposition to the full development of Garrison.

Our goal, now, is to ensure that the admi nistration and the proponents of Garrison do, in a formal way, commi t tha t change in Garrison Development so that there will be no development of that part of the project that would see an irrigation or any return flows into Manitoba and Canada. As I have indi cated, Mr. Chairman, I think I could spend many mo ments singing the praises of my department and the initia tives that I have seen in this past year in respect to many of the areas of the department that deserve to be highlighted.

However, out of deference to the concerns of members that we get on with the specifics, I'm happy to conclude with those relatively brief remarks. 500 MR. .;HAIRMAN: I would remind the Minister that dep 1rtmental staff can't come in until after the critic has spoken as well. The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I would like to ind icate that this is the first time I've had the opportunity to act in the responsible position of the official critic for a certain department and I must say that I feel very excited and I feel very good about

Mortda)', 7 May, 1984 it. I have looked forward to this thing for some time and I appreciate the opportunity to serve in this capacity, especially when I look at some of my colleagues who have been serving as Ministers in that capacity, the Member for Turtle Mountain, Brian Ransom, and the Member for Lakeside, Harry Enns, who I think had positive appr oaches in the Department of Natural Resources. I am pleased that I can follow in their footsteps and, hopeful ly, with their guid ance, we can possibly deal with the Estimates that are before us.

I suppose every individual has their own approach to these things, and I suppose I will have my own way of doing things as a critic. In looking over the activities of the Minister in the past year under the Department of Natural Resources, I think it is probably fitting that one looks at positive sides as well as negative sides.

The role of a critic, I suppose, is to try and draw to the attention of the Minister and his staff the areas of concern that possibly we have in the role of opposition and to express our areas of concern; and hopefully it's not always on a negative basis even if it is criticism; and hopefully we can offer, on this side, constructive criticism; and hopefully the Minister can accept those things. I basically have three areas of concern that I want to flag for the Minister that I feel are areas of imme diate concern.

I want to indicate to the Minister that many of my colleagues here in the House today are also very concerned about getting their views on the record, personal problems, problems related to various aspects of Natural Resources. I must indicate to the Minister that possibly the kind of concern that has been expressed within our caucus about wanting to debate the Estim ates of the Minister of Natural Resources, indicates that possibly this Minister has not been doing the kind of job that possibly we would like to see him do. In looking over the aspects of the positives and the negatives ... MR. H.

ENNS: That's the constructive criticism. MR. A. DRIEDGER: . . . I am also very happy, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues are going to be helping me with this aspect of it. The areas of concern that I want to flag for the Minister, aside from what my colleagues feel, I was looking at some of the positive aspects of it and I felt good about the announcement about reforestation, the agreement that has been signed.

I think this is something that has been some time in the coming, and I think if we follow the example of some of the other provinces where forestry is a major item, and I think we have that here, I think this has been long in coming and I hope that this is only the first step in that direction because I think we have a long way to go. I maybe feel more sensitive about it because in the southeast part of the province, the area that I represent, that forestry is a good portion of the income in the area there. The forestry is being depleted.

There is, at the present time, a very active planting program going on - I think maybe most of them - and it has been for some time. In talking to the people, there are a lot of people empl oyed right now in the planting aspect of 501 it. I think this has to be enhanced and I hope that the agreement that has been signed is going to . . . you know, this is only the first step.

I want to compliment the Minister on the agreement that has been signed, but we would like to know what the details are and I hope that the Minister, as we go through this, that he can forward the information, the direction that he has planned to take in this thing. So, Mr. Chairman, I intend to just touch on a few of these things at this time and I hope there is not a concern about repetition when we deal with these things in more detail as we come to the various sections.

The areas of concern, the three that I would like to flag, as I ind icated before, there is one area where I think there has been an over-per formance by this Minister and that has to deal with the designation of wilde rness areas. This is an area where I think possibly, Mr.

Chairman, this Minister has been influenced to some degree by some of his associates - and I don't want to necessar41y get into the details of that - but 1 think he's been getting some bad advice, because in the short period of time that I've had the responsibility of being the critic, I've had the chance to be involved with people from Mantario, Lake Mantario area, and for a government and a Minister that indicates that he's going out trying to get public reaction to some of his things, I think he's failed badly in listening to the concerns of people in that area.

Then we find out - and we want to get into this in a little bit more detail when we get to the Parks end of it, and I just want to indicate to the Minister that we want to pursue this much more diligently when we get into that area - (Interjection) - and the Member for lnkster is already chattering from his seat; obviously he feels self-conscious about it.

But I want to warn the Minister that I think he's overmoved on some of these things in terms of designating, specifically the Lake Mantario area, which is an area that is accessible to the biggest city that we have in the province, the biggest population of over 600,000. These are the people that want access to this area and I feel that possibly the Minister has been misled by some of his associates or advisors in terms of the approaches taken with this thing, and he has not listened to the people that are concerned about what's happening out there. Mr.

Chairman, if he had listened, the people were not opposed to designated wilderness areas, to some of the total restrictions on that area, and I anticipate possibly, when we get to Lake Atlkaki - I hope I pronounced that right, Mr. Minister - is that right, Atikaki? We have another designation in the Grassy River area and I'm a little concerned about the Minister - there are many areas where I think he should have probably moved on a little more strongly and this is the area where he's gone overboard. He's creating many problems for people, with mechanical restraints that he has im posed on some of these areas.

For mining, specifically, I have endless letters that I have received already in a short period of time, creating concern about how this Minister is dealing with that. This Minister must know, as Minister of Natural Resources, if he ever covers - and he's been up in the air often enough to see what Manitoba's like from the air. A MEMBER: He knows what summerfallow looks like from up there.

Monda� 7 May, 1984 MR. A. OR lEDGER: Maybe if he flew more to the North instead of to the south, possibly that could maybe have created a different impression. But when we look at the wilderness area to the North, for those people, some of his colleagues seemed to be concerned for maybe half a dozen of their friends to get a certain area designated to them. That's a rough statement, Mr.

Mini ster, but that is basically what the people out there are thinking, that some of his colleagues feel they want a designated area all to themselves where there's no mechanical access in terms of snow toboggans, airplane fishing, etc. These are the things that are coming forward and this is the one area that we feel very sensitive about, that we're over-designating certain areas. There's so much room up North. For those people that want the wilderness in the natural state, to canoe, to ski in winter, they can do that.

Why would we take areas that are accessible to many, many more people in Manitoba - and if we talk to the people in the area they say a very, very limit ed amount. When I talk about a very limited amount, Mr. Chairman, I'm talking of maybe 20-30 people that use these areas, now that they're designated and not having mechanical access. That is the area that I want to flag with this Min ister, that we want to get into much more detail when we get to the Parks end of it. There's much concern in that area.

The other two areas that I want to be zeroing in on is the area of non-performance or limited performance and the one area of course - and the Minis ter made reference to it - he says drain age isn't everything; water management is the key. With the aspect of water management I totally agree. This is the greatest resource we have, the greatest resource of the future that we have in this province. I think that the Minister is possibly initiating the right direction in terms of thin gs that should be done, but we should do more.

Instead of planning all these designated park areas, there should probably be a master plan as to how

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-16b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 16b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e14f5fafad5326ce29836b182f6088cd1ebb9286

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