Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 12B (31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-12b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Time: 2:30 p.m. LE GISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANI TOBA Friday, 7 March 1980 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Abe Kovnats (Radisson): Before we start proceedings this afternoon, I would like to bring to the attention of the honourable members that we have a group of 45 students from the Precious Blood School, St. Boniface, under the direction of Ms Annette Boucher. This school is in the district of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface. Bienvenue.

In addition, this afternoon, we also have four representations in the Speaker's Ga llery of the championship curling team, the provincial mixed champions of Manitoba, who will be representing Manitoba in the Seagram's Mixed Dominion Curling Championship starting in St. John's, Newfoundland, next Sunday. The group consists of Jim Dunstone, Carole Dunstone, Del Stitt and El aine Jones. This group comes from the area of the Honourable Member for Radisson, and I am very pleased to welcome you here this afternoon. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY -A TTORNEY-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr.

Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order. When we broke up before lunch, we were on Resolution 16, 2.(b )( l) . The Member for Ross mere. MR. VIC SCHRO EDE R: Last evening, somehow in the ch ange of Chairpeople I lost my place, but I will try to continue now. In response to what the Attorney-General said last night, which was in response to my questioning, I'm not questioning the general affairs of the criminal prosecutions division of the Attorney-General's Department.

I am in contact with that department usually once a week or more, and I believe in general it is a well-run department in the way that it previously was. One of the problems in life is that very frequently people get facts mixed up because we get them through second and third parties, and this Hong Kong matter is one of those affairs. Now, the Attor ney-General has been suggesting in the last few days that I have said that the Hong Kong expedition cost $300,000.00. I never did.

What I asked was, could the Attor ney-General confirm that it did cost $300,0 00, and I then, at a later stage, told the House that the question should have been, that I had mispoken myself, that the question should have been, did the total investigation cost $300,000? And I still don't say that it cost $300,00.00. I was asking a question, based on information which I had received. And all of us occasionally receive information which is incorrect. I don't know whether my information was correct or incorrect, and rm here to find out.

These things happen to all of us, as for instance, they happen to the Attor ney-General. He occas ionally gets his facts wrong, and I will give you an example of that. Several days ago in the House he stood up and informed the House that our Leader of the Opposition was the individual who had been Attorney-General when I was hired on to the Attorney-General's Department. That in fact, is not true. The fact of the matter is that there was another Attorney-General who was in charge of the department at that time. rm not suggesting that the Attorn ey-General was deliberately mis leading the House.

What I am suggesting is that he got his facts through second or third parties and they proved to be incorrect. That is why I am here asking questions. We have a situation here which is not your usual criminal prosecution case. This case is considerably diff erent from the general run-of-the-mill criminal case. The Attorn ey-General last night, mentioned the fact that the Court of Queen's Bench had made an order, and therefore this commission went to Hong Kong. The Court of Queen's Bench didn't make that order out of thin air.

That order was made based on an application from the Attorney-General's Department, and so to pretend that somehow, some higher court has forced all of these people to go to Hong Kong, is simply - 515 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 not factual. The Court of Queen's Bench was requested to make the order based on evidence presented, probably affidavit evidence presented to it by a me mber of the Attorney-General's Department, and it made that order. So to try to make it appear that it was the Court of Queen's Bench that ordered these people to go, as opposed to the Attorney-Gen eral's Department who dec ided that it should be done, is not quite correct. Now, there are things about this case that are different from ordinary prosecutions.

For instance, I have frequently gone to Fort Alexander, which is one of the stops in the eastern districts, I have never seen a Crown Attorney show up there four days ahead of time. Not once� In this particular case, we have Crown Attorneys showing up several days ahead of time, and there was a newspaper report indicating that what we had was jet lag, that these people had to recover from jet lag, and I think that's an area where we should be concerned, in view of the restraint that this government suggests that it is imposing on all Manitobans. We started out the questioning on this affair about a week ago.

At that time the Attorney-General started out by saying this was res adjudicata, we can't talk about it, even though he knew, rm sure at that time, that there would be no further evidence heard and that there was an understanding that the charges would be dismissed at the hearing yesterday. Then, yesterday, after the charges were dismissed, and after he agreed that there were no further appeals pending, he informed me in Question Period that this is a proper case for the Committee of Supply.

I showed up at the Committee of Supply last night and was informed that he didn't really understand why we should have any questions about this. Now, I really think, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this is an entirely different prosecution than your ordinary run-of- the-mill prosecution in this province, that this committee should be entitled to the informa tion that I have requested and other information with respect to the matter.

Therefore I am now asking the Attorney-Genera l, is he prepared to answer questions with regard to the investigation involving Dragan and the Wongs and the general administrative functions which were an adjunct to the proceedings ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, Pd like to go back to the question brought in by the Member for Wellington, and Pd like to speak in support of the position that he had, that is in regard to publication.

I, as a layman, always felt that a person was innocent until proven guilty, and unfortunately, this is not what is actually - I say actually - happening in society. It might be that a person is not sentenced unless he's sentenced by a judge, but he is sentenced in many cases by society. And I think that's wrong. I haven't heard a single person bring forward any reason why the name should be published. It is a fact, I think we all know, human nature being what it is, the higher profile a person has, or if he's in a position of authority or power or something, there's always some people that want to tear him down.

And you know, there's enough fair ways of doing it without having a situation where a man is accused - fals ely, it might be - and then where do you go from there? The man is sentenced, and his life, he's go ing to suffer, it's going to be a mark on him for a long time. I hesitate to bring this case, but it's a public case, it's given an example of one of us. Even the Leg islature, themselves, didn't want him in the caucus room, at one time, and that's before his case is in front of a judge, before it's decided if he is guilty or innocent. And I think this is wrong. How many times?

You read in the paper, as I say, Pm a layman, I do n't know the way these things work, but I can read the paper, like 99 percent of the population of our province, and let's say that it's a sex-related act, and he was accused of doing so mething. Well then, that's probably the worst as far as leaving a mark on himself and his family and maybe causing him to get a separation, to lose his wife and family. And sometimes, it could be some young people that are, for some reason or other, to get back at a teacher, get back at somebody, will make an accusation.

So I can't see, as I say, if the Attorney-General or anybody can tell us, anybody on this committee, or anywhere, can tell us, well this is the reason why. You're talking about the freedom of the press and so on. Well, fine. Let them report what is going on at the trial, but why do they have to mention names ? Why do they have to mention names? So what? So then, if he is falsely accused, there will always be something left. You know, Voltaire used to say in French: Mentez, mentez. 11 en restera toujours quelque chose.

That means, lie, lie, there'll always be a trace, so mething, it's very hard to vindicate yourself. - 51 6 -

Friday, 7 Ma rch 1980 And let's be honest and let's look at ourselves. Let's just take one of the things that we read about, somebody that we don't know, or somebody that represents something, not really our class, let's say, somebody else, or somebody on the opposite side of the fence politically and so on, and boy, you want to think right away if there's something, well there he is. There he is. And then, if the case then is thrown out of Court, you say, oh, the guy had pull. This is why. This is why it was done. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't really know which side the Member for Wols eley is.

I can agree with some of the things that he said, that we can try to educate the public, but I believe the Attorney-General, in a way we all agree on that, rm sure that he agrees on that, on that question, and try to make sure the Member for St. Johns said, make sure that the lawyers going in on these things are well-prepared, well we can always improve on that. And this is why we have the opposition here to make sure that the Attorney-General doesn't forget, no matter who the opposition is, no matter who the Attor ney-General is, because I am sure that he would like to see everything well-run.

But in this case, my colleagues here start talking about the question publication, and then we start talking about educating the people. That is something else, that should be done, it is not one in lieu of the other, or, you know, take your pick which one. It is not an alternative. They are two different things. But I could not support my colleague any stronger, I think that he is absolutely right, I think it serves no purpose at all. You know, you want all the details and all that when you read a story. You know, human nature being what it is ..• It doesn't have to be a trial.

Read about a movie star or somebody that you know that announced that a baby was born. What do you do? You start counting the months since they were married. You know, there is a lot of tha t in human nature, and I don't think that you should mark that person maybe for life, maybe for life. It is bad enough, that person, especially if he is innocent - if he's guilty, he'll get his, he'll get his, this is the way it works. We don't take the law in our own hands, we have a system, a system that is not perfect, but that's working, and fine.

So therefore if we adopt this system, if we chose this system, if we say the courts will decide after a fair trial, why should society have a chance to decide beforehand to brand somebody as guilty, and they won't change their mind. They will probably say , well, okay, it was, you know, the guy had a lot of pull, there was something wrong, or it's a technicality. I don't agree with the Member for Wolseley, it depends what - if it is wrong for one, it is wrong for the oth er. Of course his choice of what might be important is not necessarily the same as mine.

If he says beating the income tax and so on, well, you know, maybe we all like to beat the income tax , but there's beating the income tax and beating the income tax. You know, you are talking about somebody - I mean how many times have I started to make a big case in the House. I start cutting up certain things in the write-up, where somebody steals, well, maybe a case of bread, like in the Les Miserables or something, and look at what, go for the rest there, and somebody --{I nterjection)-- Mr. Chairman, would you tell Mr. Green to keep quiet.

I have to sit by him all day and now he is trying to interfere with my. • .--{Int erjection)-- No, as long as he supports my position he can go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to prolong this. I think the case was well put by my colleague from Wellington, and I am interested to know if there is somebody that has a reason why they should name names, tha t should be for everybody and it should be for everything. If you are guilty , it doesn't matter what the offence is. I think that you shouldn't be judged. We accept a system, let's live by it.

If the system is wrong, fine, but right now society has placed a responsibility of judging and sentencing to a court, and let's wait until that court is finish ed its work before you decide to name somebody as undesirable or a dangerous person and so on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Em erson. MR. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer back to the Member for Rossmere's statement just a minute ago.

I am wondering whether the Member for Rossmere is prepared to retract the im plication that he made in his question the oth.er day, on page 141 of Hansard, where he implied tha t the trip to Hong Kong cost $300,000, when I think indications were given that it cost inbetween $30 ,00 0 and $35,000, or whatever . . • I don't have the figure on that. The implication that he left in the House with his question that it cost $300, 000 to do it, I am wondering whether he in his statement before is prepared to retract that kind of a statement now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. - 5 17 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. SCHROEDE R: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to go over that again for the Member for Emerson. I take it that he had some difficulty understanding what I said before. What I said before was that I had asked for confirmation in the House that the cost of the trip to Hong Kong was $300,000.00. I then in my maiden speech in the House in the first paragraph thereof stated to the House that I had misstated myself. I did not say that it as Hansard's fault or your fault or anybody else's fault.

I said that I had misstated myself, that what I had meant to ask was: Did the entire investigation, including the trip to Hong Kong, cost $300,000 .0 0? And quite frankly, I don't know whether it did or didn't. What I do know is that the Attorney-General has indicated that the trip to Hong Kong cost $35,000 approximately. I don't know whether that includes wages and salaries, I don't know whether it doesn't include them. I don' t know whether he has added in any of the police investigation costs. I don't know whether he has added in any of the court preparation costs.

I don' t know what is included in that $3 5,000 figure at all. So I would hope that that is a satisfactory explanation, Sir. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask a qu estion which I have sort of wondered to myself why I have not asked myself this question all of my adult life. Why is some thing which appears to me at the moment to be very very wrong, why does everybody accept it and not do anything about it? First of all, I want to make sure of my facts.

When a person is charged with an offence, after he is charged and be fore he is tried, he is mug-s hotted and fingerprinted. Is that not correct? I believe that that is correct. Now that person is an innocent person and he has been fingerprinted as distinct from another innocent person. If he is acquitted, his fingerprints are there as being so mehow different from those other innocent people walking around in the world who are also not guilty. First of all, am I correct? I believe I am correct. Secondly, if I am correct, why don't we do something about this? Why do we not say at the very • . .

First of all, I don't why he should be fingerprinted. I can see a reason for it. If the police during an investigation . • . --{Interjection)- Now just a minute. If the police, during an investigation, have prints and they reasonably suspect somebody to be guilty of an offence and therefore, in the same way as a Search Warrant or others, charge and say that prints are a feature of the case, then perhaps they should get prints.

But if prints are not involved at all, if there are no evidence of fingerprinting, why do we sit by and let the policeman take fingerprints of innocent people, who are then acquitted or convicted and really, in the case where no prints are involved, because a person is convicted of a criminal offence, are his prints more relevant than the person who has never been convicted of a criminal offence? And I tend to think, Mr. Chairman, that the practice of taking fingerprints of people who are innocent and I'm not even going to - let's take one step at a time.

If they are convincted I still in logic can't see the reason for taking prints unless they are to link up the evidence for the offence. But maybe that's too radical a step. Surely we can make an encroachment on the taking of prints of innocent people. Why should an innocent person have his fingerprints taken by the police and then kept as some record against him, or relating to him, not against him, which is not required of any other citizen? Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe it goes on. I mean I believe it's so traditional and so accepted that someone will be astonished that rm asking the question.

Pm not astonished that I'm asking it, I'm astonished why I didn't start asking it 25 years ago and I have no t heard it asked. We accept the fact that a person charged with an offense is fingerprinted. Mr. Chairman , be fore I sit down or stop, and be fore I stand up, I want to note the point that I made yesterday. Mr. Clarence Campbell was today sentenced for bribery, conspiring to bribe. He got one day in jail. Now I don't happen to want Mr. Campbell to spend time in jail.

It bothers me that somebody has to be in jail. it's something that I would dread having happen to anybody and I know that it is necessary and it has to happen sometimes. But l want to again compare Clarence Cam pbell getting one day in jail to a 3 2 year old mother of four children getting nine months in jail for diverting welfare funds from welfare to recreational activities in her com munity. Now the two questions are separate.

I would like the Attorney-Gen eral to deal with the first one and tell me whether there is any validity - unless I hear something astonishingly bad about what I have said - I would like to move a resolution in the Legislature, that the practice of fingerprinting people who are not guilty of any offense except for the purpose of investigation and to link prints is something that we should have eliminated. - 518 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b) (l) . The Member for Wolseley. MR.

WIL SON : Yes, the Member for Inkster has raised an interesting point and I wondered if we might also ask the question: When a person is accused and her effects are taken, her personal belongings are taken, her business records are taken, at what point in time if it's then when the charges are laid, these things are all taken beforehand and then the charges are laid, at what point in time does the Crown return the irrelevant material to their case and is it customary for the Crown or would it be customary for the Crown to turn all her affects over to the Income Tax Bureau?

Does the Crown and the RCMP and the Income Tax Bureau all work hand-in-hand? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOE RN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask a question of the Attorney-General.

There has been, I guess, quite a bit of attention given in the past year in Winnipeg to this homosexual ring that was broken in the city and a dozen or so men involved with juveniles, and I think the impression of a lot of people, including myself, is that the sentencing was very light, because of the fact that there were minors involved and because of the fact that in a couple of instances there was an obstruction of justice or an attempt to obstruct justice.

And more recently, the Court of Appeal has been handing out stiffer sentences and reviewing these cases and extending the period of jail sentences, etc., etc. I wanted to ask the Attorney-General whether this has been the result of the department's policy or attitude toward this particular crime, or whatever it is - whatever homosexuality is - namely that in the judgment of the Attorney-General that these sentences have been too light and that it is, in fact, the result of his direction that his department has attempted to achieve longer and stronger se ntences?

Or on the other hand, has it been just the result of a normal review by the Appeal Court? MR. CHA IRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDE R: Thank you. Again, to the Attorney-General, I have been getting all kinds of information about that Hong Kong Commission. I don't know whether it is true or not, and that's why rm asking these questions. I suggest that there are a lot of people spreading all kinds of rumours about that commission, and that the sooner we get this whole thing cleared up, the better. Hopefully we can drop it after today and that will be the end of it.

I have been told, for instance, that the public trustee is still involved in litigation against the defe ndants at McGay College. Is that, in fact, true? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General a question concer ning the question that was brought up by the Member for Inkster. When individuals who are accused of a crime are fingerprinted and their pictures are taken, and later on, when the case is disposed of ..• MR. CHAI RMAN: Point of Order? The Member for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: On a point of order, I apologize to the Member for St.

Matthews for interrupting the flow of his remarks. I sincerely apologize but I think I'm representing the best interests of all the people on the committee. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you could make a ruling as to whether it would be preferable that the Attorney-General could have an opportunity to respond to each question as it comes, rather than banking seven or eight. rve just been counting, and I think he's now got five, and this will be the sixth different question.

It must be very challenging to try and maintain a bank of all those questions in his mind so that he can give adequate responses to each question. It seems to me in years past we have allowed the Minister to deal with each question individually, if that was his or her disposition, and I think in terms of the ebb and flow of committee discussion, it's more rational and logical in that sequence. Otherwise you have a hodge-podge of questioning with no opportunity for the Attorney-General to express an opinion until the very end. - 5 19 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington does not have a point of order. The Chair is in touch with the Honourable Minister and the Minister has indicated he is prepared to bank the questions and answer them at his leisure. MR. CORRIN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think I am entitled to ask for a ruling from the Chair. I don't think that it's appropriate fo r you to dismiss that summa rily. I think that in assisting you to do your work, it's to the benefit of the com mittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair is still that the Member fo r Wellington does not have a point of order.

I have che cked with the Honourable Minister; he has indicated he will be answering the questions. I think that is his prerogative. The Member for St. Matthews. MR. DOMINO: Mr. Chairman, I was asking a question of the Attorney-General. What happens if the case is handled and the individual who has been arrested and fingerprinted and the pictures have been taken, what happens in the case where these individuals are found not guilty? Are those fingerprints removed from the files? Are they removed from the RCMP files?

Are those photographs returned to the individual or are they kept by the Crown and put into the police bank? I find, it's not very seldom, or its not frequently anyway, that I find myself in complete ag reement with things that are said by mem bers on the other side of the House. MR. GREEN: We 'll have to re-assess our position, Mr. Chairman, as to whether we have made sense in the first place. MR. DOMINO: There will be a lot of re-assessing before I agree completely with what was said.

I didn't hear anything that was said by the Member for Wellington, having come in a little late, bu t I think I gather what he said from the subsequent comments made by other me mbers, and I would think he has a good point, an excellent point. Concerning what the Member for Inkster said in his proposed resolution, I hope he does carry it through and brings fo rth a resolution for the House. I know he is a very busy man, conce rned with rebuilding the world in a socialist model and everything else, but ••• MR. GREEN: I always do carry through. MR.

DOMINO: •.• there are many of us stubborn capitalists to be overcome. However, if he brings forward this resolution •.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Orde r please. MR. DOMINO: Thank you. If he brings forward this resolution that suggests that we don't fingerprint and we don't take mugshots of people until they're proven guilty in court, I don't know who's going to support him on that, but ru tell you there will be at least one member in this House who will support him, because it seems completely logical and clear to me. -{Interjection)- Well certainly, he'll have a seconder if he wants it.

I hope that the Attorney-General is going to respond to these questions and give us some rationale for the approach that the police and the government have been authorizing for years, because I think it's very important. I think it's important to people's civil liberties. rve gone on record in this House and I tJ:link my position is clear; I think that •.. MR. GREEN: You want to hang people. MR. DOMINO: Right. I want to hang people if they're proven guilty.

But first I want to make sure that those people get every single possibility to prove or demonstrate that they're innocent. -{Interjection)- They shouldn't have to. MR. CHAI RMAN: 2.(b) (l) -T he Member for Rossm ere. MR. SCHROEDE R: Yes, through you, Sir, to the Attorney-General, could the Attorney-General inform the comm ittee as to the number of man -hours expended du ring that Hong Kong case investigation by mem bers of the RCMP, by mem bers of the City of Winnipeg - 52 0 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 Police Department, by members of the Manitoba Attorney-General's Department and any other individuals under the authority of the Attorney-General of Manitoba; as well as the number of man hours spent in court preparation time by mem bers of the Attorney-General's Department staff and the costs.

The number of days upon which these charges appeared on the dockets of the Provin cial Judges Court in Winnipeg and the number of days upon which evidence was heard in this case in Winnipeg; the number of se parate days du ring which the court involved in this matter sat in the Colony of Hong Kong; the number of separate days during which substantive evidence was taken by that court in Hong Kong; whether there was a change from the High Commissioner's Office in Hong Kong of this Commission, that is did the first several meetings, or one meeting occur in the High Commissioner's Office and at a subsequent time did the hearings move and if so, where to.

Were the hearings held during a religious holiday in Hong Kong and did that have any bearing on any kind of testimony which was or was not presented. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there's been a discussion from a number of members of the commi ttee, they're in favour of a ban on publication of the laying of charges and evidence in general until the matter is disposed of. The Me mber for Wellington cited reasons both for and against the proposal.

One he didn't refer to and unfortunately it's one that's not emphasized in the news media or probably in the minds of the public and that's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and I suppose as we all know, people like to believe for perhaps just by virture of human nature that a person is guilty when he is charged. We have taken some steps in this area. Members may be aware of a recent case in which we applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from a Court of Appeal decis ion in Manitoba dealing with the whole question of pretrial publicity.

Leave was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada infortunately. That was a situation where we were of the view that in a situation where there had been a great deal of pretrial publicity that it harms the prospect of a fair trial and is something that should not occur. In the review of the Criminal Code which I referred to earlier which was held up as a result of the election, I am hopeful that the new Attorney-General of Canada will proceed with that review and this whole area has been a matter of concern; that I know where concern has been expressed in a number of other Leg islatures across Canada.

There are views on both sides, there's no question about that. But I anticipate that the whole question of pretrial publicity will be a matter that will be reviewed as part of the review of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Member for St. Johns asked a number of questions with respect to charges, guilty pleas, numbers of stays, etc. We will endeavour to obtain that information. I might just say that we had some discussion last night on introducing electronic systems or computor systems into the Department.

If we had some of those systems that have been introduced into other states in the United States, or has currently been introduced into Alberta, we would have a me thod of obtaining and accumulating those kinds of statistics very easily. That's one of the difficulties, frankly, that we have and we are not the only Attorney-General's Department, that's a problem right across Canada. Attorney-General's Departments, in general, don't have the basic information in the accumulation of statistics like those asked for by the Member for St.

Johns, but we will endeavour from the records that we do have to gather for him whatever answers we can to those questions. With respect to the Member for Rossmere's first comment where he attempted to clarify his previous remarks about the Hong Kong trip costing $300,000. I appreciate the fact that this is his first Session in the Legislature, but the fact that the question was asked in the way that he asked it would obviously lead the news media to believe that he had some evidence that the trip cost $300,000 and that's why they used a major headline of $300,000 in the paper.

He's now suggesting today that he didn't know what the trip cost and just used the figure of $300 ,000.00. I accept his explanation. MR. CHAI RMAN: The Member for Rossmere on a point of order. MR. SCHROEDE R: On a point of privilege, that is not what I said. I said that I had been informed that it cost $300,000, that the whole thing cost $300, 000. 00. I have no way of knowing whether my information was correct or not and that is why I asked for confirmation. If it was true you could have confirmed it; and if it wasn't true you could have said no it wasn't. - 521 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. MERCIER: Okay, I accept the member's explanation, Mr. Chairman. Pd just maybe suggest to him that he use different sources in the future then. With respect to the Member for Inkster's comments about the identification of criminals; my understanding of that federal legislati on is that it is in the main used for the purposes of proving previous crim inal records where those criminal records are denied. Certainly all of the fingerprinting, etc. photographing is done pursuant to that piece of legi slation.

I don't have that with me and perhaps we could, I don't know whether the Member for Inkster has reviewed the legislat ion in detail, but that's all I can indicate to him at this particular time. He referred to a sentencing in a welfare case. I can only say to him once more that in that particular case, on the basis of the fac ts, the counsel for the accused decided not to appeal on the basis that he felt that if there were an appeal taken those kinds of cases usually carried a mo re severe sentence.

The other case that he referred to, I have indicated to him and I believe he indicated to the Committee yesterday that my department was in fact appealing that case. The Member for Wols eley referred to goods that are seized in the course of charges, when are they returned? Well, generally they are subject to an order of the court and usually returned when the proceedings are completed, including the appeal period.

I can indicate to him that we get a number of complaints about that from sometimes innocent third parties whose goods have been stolen, for example, who would like to get them back, and are concerned if there is a prelimi nary inquiry and a trial in not having their goods returned, but those generally are subject to the order of the court and can't be returned until the proceedings are disposed of. The Member for El mwood referred to a homosexual ring. I can only indicate to him, as I have in the past, that there was no evidence that there was in fact a homosexual ring.

The sentences in Provincial Judges Court were reviewed by the Department and appeals were launched with respect to sentences where those were deemed to be inappropriate, and as he indicated in a number of those case the Court of Appeal has changed the sentences. The Member for Rossmere referred to the activities of the Public Trustee in the McGay College matter. I can only advise him that I am aware, as of a number of months ago, that the Public Trustee was involved in a ci vil litigation action for some of the people who were min ors. I think that action is still continui ng. In answer to the Member for St.

Matthews, the question was: If an accused is acquitted, are the fingerprints, photographs, etc., that are taken under that Identification of Criminals' Act, I believe is the name, can they be returned? My understanding is that on the request of the individ ual involved the police will destroy the records. The Mem ber for Rossmere asked a number of questions on some detailed informat ion, one of which - I believe we started and answered a number of these last nigh t. One question was with respect to the number of days the Commission sat in Hong Kong.

I thought we had gone over that last night that the Commission adjo urned on Monday, February 11 th because of some difficulty with Hong Kong witnesses, and heard evidence on the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th. So that, I suppose in answer to his question, there were no matt ers of substance generally heard on the Monday because of some difficulty with witnesses which was dealt with that day on the basis of which the hearing was adjourned.

There was also that day, as I understand it, some consultation with the defence counsel with respect to documentary evidence and providing all of that material for defence counsel The question of the High Commissioner's Office. My information is that the court party was not asked to leave the High Comm ission, but that the room provided by the High Commission, which was the largest they had, was not big enough to house the Commission and therfore the Commission mo ved to the hotel to facili tate the hearing of evidence.

I have no information to indicate that the evidence of witnesses or their hearings were held on any religious holiday which affected the evidence by the witnesses or the effectiven ess of the Commission.

Wit h respect to the other information asked for by the Member for Rossmere with respect to the number of man-hours, etc., I say to him that since yesterday I had an opportunity to speak to one of the defence counsel, who shall obviously have to go unnamed, who indicated to me that on the basis of the documentary evidence and the written reports of the RCMP there was no question that the Crown, in this particular case, had reasonable grounds for proceeding with these charges; but as we reviewed yesterday, comm ercial fraud cases are very complicated and there is a great deal of documents and it just happens that in some cases the evidence that is anticipated is not produced.

When that happens obviously an acquittal is in order, and that is what happened in this particular case. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington. -522 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. CORRIN: I want to thank the Minister for his responses to that long list of questions, Mr. Chairman. Moving back to the question of publication, I would ask that the Minister direct himself to the question I put to him this morning. I asked him why he thought the names should be pub lished. He indicated that he had an express preference for publ ication of names.

This was of some concern to several members around the table because the Attorney-General will be representing Manitoba 's position to the Federal Law Reform Commission should they deal with that matter further in the upcoming year and what members, I think, want to know is why the Attorney-General takes the position that he does? What is the rationale, what is the foundation for the position? Otherwise, it is absolutely impossible to deal wi th the substance of the issue. Presumably there must be some good reasons why he thinks that the enforcement of the law is enhanced by publication of the names.

One presumes that it is isn't just an internal disposition to retain the old law. One presumes there is more than that involved. So I ask again, Mr. Chairman, through you, if the Minister would indicate why he favours the publication of names? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't indicate that I was in favour of legis lation that woul d require the publicati on of names.

I said I was, at the present time, realizing that people on both sides, the opposition and the government, probably have different personal views, and some of our members no doubt agree with some of your members and some of your members may differ. I didn't indicate I was in favour of requiring names to be published. I think the danger in all of this is how far do you go, if you're going to go in this direction, in prohibiting publ ication of what is going on in the courts in this country. MR. D FSJARDINS: That wasn't suggested, just the publication of the names. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)(l) -the Member for Inkster.

MR. GRE EN : Mr. Chairman, the area that is being discussed is fraught with di fficulties, because if we have open trials, people can come in -and someone is going to know who is doing it -and to try to limit the name being then bandied about is a real problem. rm not dismissing the concern but if you have open trials and I can say to my neighbour that somebody is on trial, my neighbour can say it to somebody else, you'll have great difficulty saying that everybody can say so except the media. It is a problem. So it's not one that can be handled that easily.

But I certainly think that the concern that is being registered and the discussion is a constructive one. I want to come back to the fingerprinting. There are two things that you have indicat ed, and rm not criticiz ing the Attorney-General here because I did n't look at the Act, frankly that's why I asked the question, on the basis that I didn't know what it says. You've indicated two things, (1) that it may be required or is required.

I could see where it's required in order to try to link a fingerprint, such as a search warrant or other investigatory procedure, but if there is no print and a person is charged and not convicted, then there can never be a question as to whether it is a second offence. So the only time that you need the print in order to prove a previous conviction • • . And by the way, rve never seen this happen that you had to prove the previous conviction by a print because it's usually agreed to, but you may say the reason it's agreed to that they've got your prints.

But the only answer to that -the Deputy Attorney-General is nodding in agreement -is that, if that's the case, it's only necessary if you're convicte d; only necessary if you're convicted. Because you don't have to prove a previous conviction unless there is a conviction. And that may be, although I'm not satisfied -you certainly don't have to pursue it that far at this point -it may be the reason for taking prints of a person who is found guil ty.

It still doesn't justify taking the prints of a person who is charged, and with respect to the suggestion that, well if you ask for it you can get it back, there are two problems associated with that. First of all, unless it's mandatory, I would prefer not to have people say that the investigative authorities, the Police Branch, will undertake to give it back. I would be wanting to make sure that they had to give it back, and of course if they didn't take it, unless you were guilty, then there would be no need to ask for it back. -523-

Friday, 7 March 1980 Secondly, for the protection of society generally, it is not, I think, enough to say that the police can say they have destroyed it or given it to you, because there is no way of knowing whether they will not have copies and keep them. And the safest way, it seems;is that until you are convicted, the print is not some thing that you should be required to give, just as any other innocent person in society. rm not asking the Attorney-General to make a swift opinion on this, I am canvassing the problem to find out whether there is a legitimate need to take prints of an innocent person.

If you don't take them, you don't have to destroy them. And if you don't take them, then there is no question as to whether they were or were not destroyed, and if they're needed for guilty people, why do they take them before a person is convicted? MR. CHA IRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: On the same subject, I wondered if governme nts at some certain level, could no t really be a little more open about this subject.

Because it seems to me if you were to look at either Orwells 1984, or the fact that they're all demanding your social security number now, wouldn't it be nice if governments could get everyone at the age of 18, have a mandatory fingerprinting, because then governments would not on ly have your social security number but they would have your fingerprints?

It seems to me that if you're truly looking for a way to better spend your law enforce ment dollars, if you feel that every person that is brought in, be fore they are charged, is fingerprinted and photographed, you're looking at at least two to three personnel, and I believe when I was in city council it was some thing like $16.80 an hour for a policeman. I believe if you want to rent one for the Car lton Club or something, it's something like $24.00 an hour. But what I am trying to say is that it seems to me that I wonder at the priority of the law enforcement dollar that's being spent.

If we're spending that taxpayer's dollar on some thing that I consider that is completely unnecessary at a certain stage, I have an underlying feeling that maybe, just maybe, they want to build up the bank as a way, together with the social security number, of be ing able to have more and more people on their co mputer, on their records. If this was the honest approach that the federal government wanted to tell the citizens of Canada, then they would have a mandatory fingerprinting of all adults at the age of 18.

If they are interested in truly having priorities in the protection of individuals in our battle against crime and crimes of violence in the street, then I think the priority of the dollar spent should be more for citizens' protection rather than spent on what I call clerical work, such as fingerprinting, that may involve two or three individuals. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rossmere. MR. SCHROED ER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Further to a point that the Member for Inkster was making with respect to open trials and the right of people to know what is happening, back to that Hong Kong matter, I suppose that's one of the reasons why people have these concerns and why these ru mours are going around.

There is a situation where we didn't have a trial that took place in the open in the city of Winnipeg or in Manitoba, it took place outside of this country. rm not saying that there was anything improper; what I am saying is that as a result of the lack of opportunity of anyone from here to be present at the trial there are certain ru mors which have developed and this would appear to be the only opportunity to answer those kinds of rum ors. The Attorney-General indicated to me that I ought to check my sources, maybe change them. He may be right; he may be wrong.

He is attempting to use the one figure of $35,000, which is apparently the cost of certain items included in the trip to Hong Kong, I don't know which items, I don't know which items were excluded.

When we are talking about a total investigation the $300,000 as being related to the entire investigation is not something which I first brought up this afternoon, in fact I mentioned that, as I said, previously in my maiden speech in the House - I believe the Attorney-General was present - and therefore it was clear about a week ago that what I was referring to was the total cost of this investigation including the trip to Hong Kong. Now to suggest that the $35,000 is the answer to my total question I suggest is considerably misleading.

So that what I am saying is, and it may well be that my source is wrong but I don't know that and I wouldn't want to change my source at this time until I find out and that's why I'm asking what the total cost was. -524 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 Now a question that I have of the Attor ney-General is will the action, the civil litigation by the Public Trustee's Office, continue; and I have several other questions again dealing with that High Commissione r's Office? On what day did they move? Was it on the first day of the hearing or on the second day or on the third day and when did the Court party leave Hong Kong? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the hotel room, as I understand it according to the information I've received, was only used for two days.

I would point out to him that although it was being less expensive, as I've said on numerous occasions, to go to Ho ng Kong to take the Commission evidence which was approved and au thorized, as I said by an Order of the Court of Queen's Bench; there was a court reporter there. I assume a transcript of those proceedings could be ordered, the evidence was taken by the court reporter. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b)(l )--pass. The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to belabo ur the question of publication of names any further but I think that the last response that was elicited from the Honourable Attorney-General mudd ied the waters. This mo rning it was my distinct imp ression, and I think that I can reasonably infer from the debate it was the distinct impression of virtually everybody at the table, that the Minister had said that the publication of names should be permissibl e. In other words, upon a charge being laid by his department the publ ication of a name should be permissible at the discretion of the media .

Now a few moments ago he says, and I think I can almost paraphrase his remarks, perhaps quote them almost verbatim. he says that he is not in favour of requiring publication of names. As a matter of clari fication, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I don't think anybody at this table has sug gested that they're in favour of requiring the publication of names. I don't think that has been an issue in the course of today's discussions at all. I think the question quite simply put is should the law allow the press to publ ish names? Now that is the question to which I would like to have a yes or a no answer.

If the Attor ney-General is going to go to Ottawa, meet with his federal counterpart, Mr. Cretian, or whoever is now, I'm not sure that he is actually his counterpart but whoever occupies that particular position , I would like to know what position the Minister will taking in those discus sions. I think that it's an entitlement of the members of this committee to be apprized of positions to be taken on behalf, if not of all the members of this committee at least on behalf of the people of Manitoba through the official government member, in such important discussions.

And I think it's just a matter of a yes or a no and I don't want to belabo ur it, but it's just sim ply yes or no. And if the member differs from the stated position as expressed by members around the table that there should not be enabling legislation or there should not be, I guess you don't need enabling legisl ation, there should not be allowance for the press to publish names, he should say so. I think he should feel free to justify whichever position he takes and he should feel both qualified and capable to be forthcoming and forthright with the committee.

I think it's simply a matter of integrity in the sense that one presumes that there are good reasons why the Minister takes one position or another; that he really believes as a matter of principle that one position is mo re tenable ethically than the other and therefore he is willing and able to defend it and to assert it to his colleague in Ottawa. But I think in all fairness it should be disclosed to memb ers of the committee.

On another point, because the Minister has indicated a disposition to bank his questions, I would very much like to know some mo re details about the tapping of member's telephones in the past 12-month period.

There were press reports, rm not sure that they were confirmed, but they observed at the time that the telephones of certain memb ers of this House were under surveillance by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. rm not sure, I presume, I think the tenure of the press reports was to the effect that this was done as a part or part and parcel of the surveillance leading up to the laying of charges against my friend from Wolseley. It seems to me, Mr.

Chairman, that the Attorney-General owes it to the members of the Legislature, his peers as it were, to indicate how it came to pass that the telephones were monit ored or tapped, whether it was done with his consent and permission. And I would like to emphasize that I want to know whether it was done with his consent and permission, whether or not there was judicial permission given to the police prior to their interception of these calls, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know whose telephones were tapped? I would like to know if my telephone was tapped. And, Mr. Chairman, on a broader plane .•• -525 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. DESJAR DI NS: I thought you were against publication. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, on a broader plane, I would like to know the Minister's position vis-a-vis the publicati on of lists, as they do in Ontario, disclosing the names of all persons whose telephones have been tapped in any given year.

I understand, and I think I am correct, that in Ontario there is legislati on that requires that the Atto rney-General table in the Assembl y of that province a report disclo sing the names of all citizens whose telephone calls were intercepted by the police during the twelve-month period preceding the report. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a matter of fairly great substance. I think it goes to the very heart of the civil libe rties which we so proudly proclaim ourselves to enjoy, and I wolild like to have some response with respect to all those matters. I think it is again encumbent on the.

Minister to advise us. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the first item. I have indicated that my position at the present time is that I would have to be persuaded further before I would change my position wi th respect to publicati on of names of persons charged with criminal offences. I would prefer to see an emphasis, perhaps it would have to be an educational function, of strengthening the legal presumption in the minds of the people that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I recognize that this is a very controversial matter, that other persons besides the Member for Wellington and others who have spoken, have expressed the same view he has taken; it has been expressed in other provinces and concerns have been expressed. I would expect that it would be included within the terms of reference of a review of the Criminal Code, in which we took, and the previous government agreed there was to be some close consultation with each provincial Attorney-General's Department. I would propose that, in that view, as it affects this province, to involve outsi de organizations.

For example, the Criminal Justice Subsection of the Mani toba Bar, I would think should be consulted in that review when terms of reference for that study are drafted. So that while I express, as requested, a personal view of this matter as I see the matte r now stands, I recognize it as a controversial one and I am prepared to arrange to have that matter, as well as all others that are proposed in the major review, discussed as widely as possible with organizations and groups in the province.

With respect to the second question from the Member for Wellington, I have been assured by the police force that there have been no unau thorized interceptions of communicat ions in this building. There is publ ished in The Manitoba Ga zette each year figures relative to the numbe rs of wireta(X> that take place. The persons involved in those wiretaps receive notice pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code. MR. CHA IRM AN: The Member for Wolseley. MR. WILS ON : Well, I just wanted to say •.• MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington, on a point of order. MR. CORRIN: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman. are we not following the usual rules? Do not supplementary questions take precedence to new questions? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. would ask the Honourable Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to indicate whether he believes that it is possible - and I now remind him that he represents the interests of not only the law enforcement agencies in the prosecution of cases against individuals alleged to have broken the law bu t he also represents the interests of the people who are appearing before the courts, who are indeed usually taxpayers, voting cit izens of this province -in light of that, I would ask him whether he believes that it is possible, after stmsational publication of the names of an accused, for that individual to have a fair unbiased impartial treatment before a jury of twelve or his or her peers? -526-

Friday, 7 March 1980 I would ask whether he believes that it is possible in a small province with pervasive mass media, such as we have, for a man or wo man to stand before a jury of twelve men and women and have his or her case adjudicated in a truly impartial manner? If the details of the case, as are by the way usually revealed by the police to the press, Mr. Chairman, not by the accused; nobody comes back to the accused and says, what did you do, what is your version of the story. You know, did you do it or didn't you do it. Then there are all sort of rules. The press doesn't want to get involved in that.

They want to hear details, perhaps from the Attorney-General himself, about the nature of the prosecution, the substance of it. They will go to the police authorities responsible for the investigation and get some more detail. This may well find its way to the front pages of a daily newspaper in the city where the accuse d lives and from where all the jurors will be selected, probab ly hotly debated and discussed on the Peter Warren Show during the morning hours. Now I ask, Mr.

Chairman, whether the Attorney-General believes that it is possible, within our concept of justice as we know it and as we respect it, for such an accused to have a fair and impartial trial before a jury of his or her peers? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairma n, almost anything is possible, but I re peat to him again that we applie d for leave to appeal under the Suprem e Court of Canada very recently and were turned down on a question of pre-trial publicity, where we had received an adverse ruling to our position in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, because we were concerned what we submitted was publication of evidence prior to a trial. We have, I think, demonstrated through these court proceedings a concern in this area and I suggest that it will be a matter that will be dealt with in the review of the Code. MR. CORRIN: A supplementary, Mr. Chairman.

Dealing with the other aspect of the response the Attorney-General made to my first query, he indicates that there is requirement - and he is quite correct - that there is requireme nt that the numbers, the absolute numbers of wiretaps within the province, be published in The Manitoba Gazette annually. What I asked him was whether or not he would endorse legislation similar to Ontario that would require all people whose telephone conversations have been intercepted to be informed of the fact at some subsequent date after the interception takes place. In Ontario there's a ... MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Criminal Code requires that they be notified within a period of time. MR. CORRIN: I'll take that under advisement. I don't believe that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Member for Wolseley. MR. WIL SON : I was a little concerned because of the fact that if you published a list of all the persons wiretapped as you do in Ontario, if what the Member for Wellington says is true, wouldn't the media then have a field day of unbelievable proportions, be cause they would take it the sa me as most of my little ladies and homeowners in my district say, it must be true it's in the newspaper.

Could you imagine what would happen to the citizens of this province if a list of all the people that were wiretapped was ever made public? Because people would assume from that certain things, and I would be rather concerned of that list; that the Minister give some very ser ious thought to that before he does adhere to the Ontario system .

I would also like to say that the Minister has indicated, on a number of occasions having referred to the forme r Attorney-General, said there were 18 wiretaps in Manitoba during the last year of his government, that it would seem to me with an increase in the RCMP budget of $17 million to $27 million, and the ad vent of a new building in a direct line with the telephone system, that I would suggest that a very sophisticated wiretapping system is in place in Manitoba and I would be very much surprised if that list of 18 wiretaps was not in fact maybe tripled or maybe even 10 times what it was during the last year of the former Attorney-Gen er al.

I appreciate that it's going to be available in the Manitoba Gazette, but I think it would be of interest to the general public, be cause of the fact people such as Mr. Warren have referre d to 19 84, that maybe it's upon us now and the liberties and civil rights of people certainly are being affected. And I would say that if there is a sort of mass ive xeroxing of wiretap orders going out by ju dges in the province, permission for them, that the general public should know. -527 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 I recomm end to everybody that they should alw ays maybe carry their conversations on to the extent that maybe there is some sort of surv eillance. I again think that we shouldn't have to wait until the Manitoba Gazette is published to-find out how many wi retap; there were in the year 19 79. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Me mber for St. Boniface. MR . DE5 JAR DINS: Mr. Chairman, I find it quite diff i cult to go back from one to the other, but apparently you've made your ruling. I think that things would be speeded up if we discussed one thing at a time and then tried to do away wit h it.

We can't call closure but I think it would make more sense. But if we must keep on like this I am a little concerned. It seems that som ebody is mi ssing the point. Maybe we have too many lawyers around here, but on this question of publication, the Attorne y-General keep; talking about the question of a fair trial whic h is very im portant, whi ch is his responsibility. But publication, as far as I am concerned, there is something that is being mi ssed here.

Even if he has a fair trial, and even if it is proven that he is still innocent , the thing is that I feel that that man is marked for the rest of his life in many instances. You're not washing the slate clean in this case, and that is the concern. I don't think we have to wait until they discuss that, Pd like the Minister to at least look at it. I ask him and I issue the challenge now to anybody to tell us what good will it do ? Will it im prove justice ? Will it im prove fairn ess in the trial and so on by publishing na mes ? Does it do anything?

I don't think it does and I think we could show leadership if we can, try it anyway , bring legislation that would prevent that. rm less concerned in this case because the names are mentioned. Pm less concerned about a fair trial because I think that the lawy ers are suff icie ntly trained, and the judge and so on, that they won't let that bother them too much. I say too much, because it will up to a certain point, they being human beings. But I'm talking about some thing that wi ll be left long after.

How many time s do you hear, oh yes, he's the guy that did that - no, no, he wasn't proven guilty; but it stays wit h you , and that's what I'm concerned wit h more than anything else. There's just an exa mple here. "Charges cost man job and family despite being cleared." And as I say, even some people around this table, we'd do the same thing ourselves, we 'd be afrai d of busine ss, we'd be worri ed about political repercussions and so on and we ostrasize these people and I think that's wrong, I think it's too different things. All right.

Do everything you can, and if you have something to show me, well we need that because that's the only way you're going to get a fair, or even if it'll im prove the situation, it 'll make possible that they'll have a fair trial. But what the hell difference does it make if som ebody wants to read all the gory details. The Attorney-General said well, they're freed, the details should be known, rm no t even arguing that. I could at another time but that's not my concern right now. If som ebody wants to read the whole thing, let them, but why do you have to put a name? Just, it 's Mr. X or something.

If a man's guilty, well fine, that wi ll come out, but if not, there's no point. There's no reason at all. As I said earlier, we accepted a certain way of doing things in a free society and we delegate the courts who have the knowled ge, who are trained in that to do a good job the same as we do in anything else. Doctors do the same thing, we license them to specialize in certain things, I don't fight that, I'm not against that at all. As I say , no thing's perfect but it's the best that we've seen.

It's fair compared to a lot of other countries where they have a different system, but I don't think that there is any reason in the world to start mentioning na mes and slap that in the newspaper, espe cially in this day and age. That's what the people seem to want; you want the gory details, you want the dirt. You focus, you know if somebo dy's going to do good you don't give a damn about that, you might find the story on Page 44, you focus on the mi sfit in society , and what's wrong? You don't give credit.

And why start naming names, maybe we should stop for a minute, keep quiet and you should call a recess and just bow our heads and think, what the heck would happen if we were accused. I can go and make an accusation that somebo dy has done some thing, trying to get even with them and so on, and then that's it. It stays wit h them for a long time, as I say, mostly with the sex-related offences and it mi ght be some sick person; nothing more than a mere child can make an accusation, that's it, that'll be in the paper right away.

You mig ht find out that the fellow was somewhere else, but that's going to stay and I see no reason. And I think that if we, for a minute, try to put ourselves in the place of these people we'd change our mi nd fast. It doesn't change anything. The Minister said that he appealed and so on. That is another question. Even if you had a fair trial, it doesn't change anything if you have your name in ... Well, like this one here, I - 528 -

Friday , 7 March 19 80 haven't read it, I don't know what this is all about but the heading, "Cha rges cost man job and family." I don't know, maybe it is, but .•• So Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister should look at that. He doesn't have to go and talk to the other Attorne ys-General. If it makes sense let's show leadership here. Has he the right , have we the right here in Manitoba to enact legislation to protect our people? Are we afraid to do something? You have a sy ste m, and then you say, don't rock the boat. It must be a good syste m, it's been on for ten years. That doesn't mean anything.

It's like my friend from Inkster said, he's a lawyer himself, he said, "I'm wondering why I didn't think of that before?" And it's brought in. If it has no merits. But not because we want to keep on doing things the way they have been doing. If there is any advantage at all in the publication of names of som ebody that is not found guilty, and according to law, and according to the way we operate here, that man is innocent. Well, why would you want to put an innocent man's name in the paper and relate it and say all the things he is supposed to have said.

It's the same thing in politics, you can start talking about the Minister was incensed that apparently my friend here asked a question, and it was above board, he asked a question, but there was an innuendo, the Minister thought that he was making a state ment. If that is fine why should you object to that? Because you feel that that wasn't correct and that some people will read that and it's wrong. So Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister should take into consideration the suggestion of my honourable friend, not only for the fair trial but for the innocent person themselves. MR.

CHAIRM AN: The Me mber for Wellington. MR . CORRIN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister, through the Deputy advised me that there is in place, today, through the Criminal Code of Canada I believe the Deputy said, law which requires the disclosure of the names of all persons whose telephone conversations are intercepted by the police pursuant, I presume, to authorized interceptions, judicially auth orized interceptions. I'm wondering, for clarification, and I must admit, Mr.

Chairman, I suppose it would be incorrect for me not to admit that perhaps I'm growing in the sense that I am being, if not educated at least re-educated. Perhaps he could advise when the law came into existence and whether or not the reporting process, the informational process is related to the person whose calls are intercepted, or whe ther or not the intercepting party merely has to inform the courts, or some authority such as the Attorne y-General within the province.

I'd like to know, as a matter of my own interest now, and I am interested because I think it's an important area of law and one that did at one time require reform, perhaps it no longer does. I'd like to know whether or not it is the case that the reporting authority, na mely the police department , has to disclose the interception to the individual whose calls were received. I would draw a distinction between the report being made, for instance, to the judge who issued the order or the Attorney-General responsible for the province in which the interception took place.

Is it the actual person, and if so, what time limitations prevail? At one time, it seems to me there was some - in the deep recesses of my memo ry I reme mber somet hing that did require a report to go forward, but it seemed to me that it could go forward any time wi thin five to ten years after the event. I'm not stating that to be a fact but it seemed to me at one point that there was a requirement that a report be tabled somewh ere, I just don't remembe r who it was wit h, but that there was virtually unlimited time and latitude given to the authorities on the tabling of the report.

So I would like some clarification now from the Deputy or the Minister on those points. MR . CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Minister. MR. ME RC IER: Mr. Chairman, the notice goes to the person whose telephone has been tapped. The legislation, as I recollect, came into effect in the mid-seventies. With respect to the actual time requirement for notifying the person, we're going to get a copy of the Code and we'll show it to the me mber. I just don't recollect whether it's 60 or 90 days. MR . CORRIN: A supplementa ry to that, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask, what then will happen in the case of ML A's telephones, office telephones being tapped? Is the Attorney- General aw are whe ther or not notice will be given, and presumably by now, 60 to 90 days, he says , presuma bly by now we are well past the limitation period, so did he receive notice on behalf, or any other Minister of the government receive notice on behalf of those MLA's ? - 529 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 MR . MER CIER: In the matter to which the me mber refers, Mr . Chairman, I would presume that , it being a federal prosecution, that the federal prosecutor would have informed anyone as required under the provisions of the Code. MR. CORRIN: I'm sorry to ask the Minister to repeat an answer after he has given it. I should have been paying better attention but I missed part of the response and, Mr. Chairman, through you, I'd ask the courtesy of ..• MR . MER CIER: Mr.

Chairman, on the presumption that the me mber is referring to a federal prosecution, I presume that the federal au thority would send out the necessary notifications in conform ity with the code. MR . CORRIN: Well I don't want to split hairs, Mr. Chairman, but we were talking initially about provincial prosecutions and we're talking about legislation that pertained in the Province of Ontario.

I know that the tapping of telephones that took place with respect to MLA 's lines was pursuant to a federal en forcement matter, na mely Narc otics Control, an area that was within the domain and jurisdiction of the federal government not the provincial government. I am also concerned with the same point as it relates - and tha t's how I th ought I phrased it - as it relates to the provincial jurisdiction.

If the Atto rney-Gen eral's enforcement officers, if officials of a law enforcement agency are pursuing a case, a line of investigation in Manitoba and that case will be prosecute d by me mbers of the Attorney-Gen eral's Department in this province, will there be disclosure? MR. ME RCIER: Disclosure? MR . CORRIN: Yes, will there be disclosure to those persons who had their telephone conversations intercepted? I don't want to, as I said, split ha irs but we want to be precise in our terms. MR . MER CIER: Mr.

Chairman, in any investigation involving the provincial Attorney- General's Department, involving wire taps, the department will com ply wit h the terms of the Cri minal Code. The person tapped will get a notice. MR. CHAI RMA N: The Member for Inkster. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to a point, with regard to sentencing, that the Minister dealt with in a way which, to me, raised more questions than it answered.

I believe that society generally would be offended if they were told that a mother of four children, 32 ye ars of age, first offender, was sent to jail for nine months she diverted welfare mon eys to recreational activities in her community and she lives in a collective commu nity. And by the way, I know noth ing more about the case, I am stating what I understand to be the events, with no more aggravating circu mstances than I have indicated.

The Minister's response is that the defense counsel felt that to appeal this type of case would be to invite a higher sentence because in this type of case the sentence could go up. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's what of fends me. This type of case - what you are saying is that this is not a particular case, that in this type of case, that is a woman of this kind with that type of an offense, that she would get more than nine months.

Well I believe that the Attorney-General's Department, which is involved in dealing with the public interests and public morality, if they are telling me that this type of case is one in which the department accepts the fact that a person should go to jail for nine months, then I have a bigger argument wit h the Attorney-Gen eral than I thought I had. Because I don't think he should rest quietly or passively to know that type of case would inspire that type of se ntence.

And that if he does say that is what is occurring, then his Crown attorneys should be going to the court , speaking for the public of Manitoba, saying the Crown does not ask for prison for this type of case. And then if he said that the judge is the one who is the sentencing au thority and we did everything we could, then my argument would be with the Minister of Justice or the judiciary. But if he says that this type of case invokes that kind of sentence, then I'm going to say do somet hing about it. - 530 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 It is not as if we are impassive people with respect to this type of sentence. There is nothing wrong wit h the Crown attorney going before the courts and saying the Crown does not feel that a prison sentence is warranted for this type of case and this type of defendant. And we should not be satisfied with the prison sentence because defense counsel said that he's afraid that he'll get more. There should be a public element involved here and the public element should be to the effect that the Crown does not seek that kind of punishment. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is saying that sentencing is always the prerogative of the judge, I won't argue wit h that. I think he said that to the Member for Wellington yesterday, that talking about what pleas should be made is not improper, on the ultimate understanding that the Crown can't im pose a sentence, that the judge im poses a sentence . But the Crown can say it is not in the interests of society that a woman be sent to prison for nine months. And in the ulti mate, Mr.

Chairman - and don't discount this and I hope that if I was occupying the Minister's chair, I hope that I would be strong to my conviction to do it - I would appeal that sentence. The Crown can appeal that sentence. The Crown can go to the Court of Appeal, if they are offended by what occurred, and say: The judge imposed nine months; we think that's too much. And it's not enough for the Minister to say that we leave that up to the courts. The courts will accept their responsibility.

The courts will accept their criticism if it's due, but the Crown has a responsibility wh ich they cannot ignore and in a proper case should excercise: first, to the point of saying that they don't ask for that type of sentence and, second, to the point of saying that they will appeal it if it's imposed. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but make com parisons. If ever there were a law for the rich and a law for the poor, it's been indicated with a few comparitive sentences. Clarence Cam pbell got one day in jail for conspiring to bribe a senator, a conviction.

A man who stole several hundred thousand dollars from the government was fined $1 10, 000 which presumably he will pay. The man who took DREE money and diverted it to his private dwelling, not to recreational services in his community, was ordered to pay a $3,500 fine. Let me make it clear. F.ach of those merciful sentences may be appropriate. I am not seeking blood. I am not saying that those guys should have got more. rm saying this woman should have been treated as mercifully as they.

And if the Attorney-General sees that is not happening, then do not say that defense counsel was scared, because defense counsel sometimes can be appropriately scared. He can say that maybe she'll get more than nine months if it goes upstairs. What is our position? Are you satisfied that justice was done in that particular case and, if not, then the Attorney- General can appeal that sentence ? MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR . ME RCIER: Mr. Chairman, as a result of public concern over this and a number of other cases, I requested a review by the Director of Prosecutions with respect to them.

The Member for Inkster started off by acknowledging that he was not aware of the facts of the case other than the .•. MR . GREEN: Other than what I've stated. MR . MER CIER: Right. The review of the case that I have indicates that there was a breech of trust situation, in which incarceration is usually warranted. The accused had counsel. Surely counsel formed a view not to appeal and that's where that particular matter ends. Now the question of the nine-month sentence is another matter.

When the Me mber for Inkster indicates that this woman is going to be in jail for nine months, that is a cause for concern in the minds of many people involved in the judicial syste m. I don't know whether she's out or not now. I suspect that she is ..• MR. GR EEN: I hope so. MR . MER CIER: ..• and she was sentenced very recently. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-Gen eral has said that I am not aware of the case and he has not given me one additional fact which would aggravate the offense. I know that she was in breech of trust.

I know that money was sent to her to be used as welfare in the community and she used it for recreational purposes. She did a wrong thing. - 531 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 She is convicted. She is then to be sentenced. And the fact that a person can get out on im mediate day parole is not some thing that the Attorney-General has to inform me of, and I asked in the House and rve still not been given an answer. If she was given a day parole imm ediately the next day, it would prove to me that the sentence was not considered somet hing which should have been imposed. But I would hope that she is not in jail. I would hope that she is wit h her children. But we are still talking about a first offender.

We are still talking about the fact that the moneys were diverted in this way and we are still talking about the fact that people who co mmit, people at a much higher intelligence level, wi th much less - and you can't even talk about justification for the cri me - wit h what society would view as more reprehensible and conscious activities, have been given much less sentences, and rm not seeking to increase them.

I'm talking about the sentence that is im posed and I say that the Crown has an obligation, when one looks at the si tuation and says that this cannot be, to, if necessary, appeal the fact that it's nine months and ask that it be reduced. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, the Me mber for Inkster indicated the money was used for recreational purposes. The report that I have indicates that the money was used for a number of other purposes by the accused, not just for recreational purposes for the comm unity.

The Me mber for Inkster refers to a numbe r of other dispositions in other cases where either the federal government prosecutes or another province prosecutes. I don't agree, Mr. Chairman, wit h the results of every prosecution by another jurisdiction. We only take responsibility for the ones that occur within our jurisdiction. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the Attorney-General . • • Well, I'm going to ask him a very blunt qu estion because he has his agents appearing be fore judges on these questions, and he is a lawyer himself.

If he was the Crown Attorney would he go to that court and say, "I believe this woman should get nine months". Because if he does, then I have a much more serious problem wit h him than I think I have; and if he wouldn't say it , and I don't believe he would, I really don't believe he would. The Mini ster is a softie and I say that as a complim ent, not otherwi se, because I believe that so ftness is better than hardness in dealing wi th this type of thing. If people ask for money that is something different, then you have got to be tough.

But in terms of dealing wit h punishment , in dealing wit h a woma n in these circu mstances, I believe that the Minister, if he was on the floor of that courtroom would say, Your Worship or Your Honour, as they now say, I believe that this woman has erred, that she has made a mistake but she has never done it before, that in much respect it was done wi th an erroneous but good moti vation.

I believe she is sufficie ntly punished by what has occu rred , and I would ask that she be given a suspended sentence, to be of good behaviour and keep the peace for a period of two years; and that is all I am asking him to tell his Crown Attorney to do. I believe that is what he would do and I am asking him to tell his Crown Attorney to do the same thing. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chair man, in this particular case the Crown Attorney involved, on the basis of the case law that he felt was appropriate, requested a period of incarceration but made no recomm endation as to the am ount of incarceration.

The defence counsel also apparently indicated that a period of incarceration was appropriate. MR . GREEN: Mr. Chai rman, I would ask the Minister on the basis of everything that he has told me to try to see that that kind of thing does not happen. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Me mber for Welli ngton. MR . CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, getting back to ML A's telephones and the events of last summer. I would like the Minister to confir m a few things, and if he can't confirm them he can advise me.

Is it not true that the notice that is sent out to the person who was the subject of the special judic ial permit, that is the person who the police wi sh to investigate - people are shaking their heads all ready, I haven't asked the question yet - is it not true that the notice just has to be sent to the person who was the subject of the au thorization? That is just yes or no, I think the answer to that is yes. MR . ME RCIE R: In any wi retap case the answ er is yes. - 532 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 MR . CORRIN: Is it also not true that there is no disclosure on the notice of where the telephones that were tapped were located? MR. MER CIER: The answer is yes. MR. CORRIN: Right. So is it not true then that if, for instance, the RCM P were tapping the telephone, well were tapping any telephones that may be used by a person under investigation, that other persons whose calls were also intercepted, because they happen to be on the same trunk or party lines, would not legally have to be informed?

Is that not the reason why no other me mber of the Legislature received notice from the federal authorities advising them that the ir telephones had been tapped ? MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I made one answer previously in response to the Member for Wellington and because of the requirem ents of the Code I hope he will bear with him when I tell him that I am unable to answer any further questions. MR . CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think that is simply obfuscating the issue. We are not dealing with the matter sub judicata now.

What I am asking is whether or not me mbers whose telephones were tapped , membe rs of this Legislature, and I could address this as a matter of a privilege of this House, Mr. Chairman, whet her me mbers of this Legislature are to be advised of the fact that their telephone conversations were intercepted by mem bers of the police? MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, I repeat my previous answer to the mem ber. I advised him that I have been assured by the police forces that no unauthorized interception of commu nications in this building occurred. MR. CORRIN: Mr.

Chairman, as I pointed out to the Honourable Minister a moment ago, the au thority to intercept a conversation, a telephone conversation, is only made with respect to the name of the person who is suspected of having com mitted a criminal offence, so the police are empowe red, as I und erstand it, to tap any telephone anywhere, any place where they believe that person may be using that particular telephone instrument. So they can have 25, 35, 55, 155 telephones in this province tapped.

If they believe that a person in this building has commit ted a crime and they receive permission to intercept telephone calls, it is my understanding that they need only inform the person who is under suspicion 90 days after the last telephone tap and they can renew the permit over and over and over again in order to obviate the necessity of having to inform the party under suspicion. But what I am directing my self to, Mr.

Chairman, is the question of why all the people in this building , all the members of the Legislature, were subject to this sort of scrutiny without some sort of intercession or protection on the part of the Attor ney-General. I would like to know why there is an authority for everybody, every mem ber of the Attorney-Gen eral's caucus, to have their telephone conversations intercepted for a length of time simply because one member of the group is under suspicion of having committed an offence?

I would like to know whether the Attorne y-General thinks that right, wh ether he approves of such conduct on the part of the law enforcement officials; and I would like to know whether or not he will undertake to find out what telephone conversations were indeed intercepted and find out whether or not these people will be informed? And if that is not the law today, I would ask him whether he thinks the law should be reformed so that all people who are the subject of those interceptions would be properly informed. MR . MER CIER: Mr. Chairman, the Me mber for Wellington's assumption is incorrect. MR .

CORRIN: What assumption? MR . MER CIER: The assump tion you just made, that all telephones of the wh ole caucus were wiretapped. MR. CHAIR MA N: 2.(b)(l )-pass. The Me mber for Wellington. MR . CORRI N: Then if the assumption, which is based on news repoi'ts, is incorrect, Mr. Chairman, I think as a matter of great concern the Attor ney-General �.:hould take this - 533 -

Friday , 7 March 1980 matter up with the media that reported the incident and perhaps ask for some reason, som e justification, for the med ia having made that publication. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.( b)(l )-pass. The Member for St. Vital. Order please. The hour being 4:30, my apologies, the hour being 4:30 the Committee will adjourn for Private Members' Hour. SUPP LY - LABO UR AND MANP OWE R MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Abe Kov nats (Radisson): I would bring to the attention of the honourable membe rs, we are on the Main Estimates, Page 68, Labour and Manpower. Resolution No. 89 , Item (

c) Wo men's Bureau, Item

(1) Salaries--pass - the Honourable Minister. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Chairman, I was asked to pass some samples of some of the pamphlets that our Wo men's Bureau have been handing out throughout the province of Manitoba. We have handed out approximately 2,000 of them - they were to be handed over to the opposition. In addition to that, the kind of press the Women's Bureau is getting, the Tribune of Friday March 7th I think, is an example of the fine work that they're doing in this particular province. MR. CHAIRMAN: (I )-pass - the Honourable Lead er of the Opposition. MR.

HOWARD PA WL EY (Selkirk): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words under this subject item. I believe that, too frequently, only cosmetic measures are presented pertaining to em ployment opportunities and equal opportunity proposals for women, that what must in fact be done must be measures that are much more fundamental and important than simply the cosmetic. We listened to the statement which the Minister read this morning about the International Year of the Wo men, and we certainly appreciate the statement, but Mr.

Chairman, in practice, in fact, the statement is little more than cosmetic and public relations. Because there are deep and funda mental problems within our economic fram ework that give rise to the present situation confronting women in the workforce.

When we are dealing with a situation such as we are now in Canada, and certainly Manitoba's statistics would bear sim ilarly to the Canadian situation, where 71 percent of the women are employed in but four occupations, 33 percent in clerical, 19 percent in service, 11 percent in sales, 8 percent in nursing; indicates that in gen eral, women are relegated to a narrow concentration of em ployment fields, rather than enjoying the opportunity to participate in the wide array of em ployment opportunities that are available to both male and fe male.

Secondly, we are faced with a situation in Canada, where there is a sizeable wage gap, and unfortunately, that wage gap is not narrowing, but has been stabilized, or in fact has been widening. The result, now for example, in Canada, is that analysis demonstrates that 77 percent of workers are wome n, but that their average inco me is approximately $5,000 less than the average income for men in the clerical field - 77 percent, women in the clerical field, their average pay cheque $5,000 less, wage gulf and concentration of employment in a few occupational areas.

And 6 percent of the male force is unemployed; 8 1/2 percent of the female workforce unemployed. Then we are dealing, of course, with policies which have been presented feder ally and provincially, which have contributed to this present situation. And regrettably, Conservative governments, both in Ottawa and in Manitoba, contributed to this situation, of widening the gulf, of creating the unemployment situation. And I would like to de tail a few of those policies, Mr.

Chairman, which have directly contributed to not an equalizing of the present situation, but a widening of the present situation pertaining to women. No effort to provide some cosmetic public relations at last minute can detract from the fact that the Minister and his govern ment, in the space of the last two and a half years, along with his Conservative colleagues in Ottawa, have helped to worsen the situation rather than to improve the present situation. There is no doubt, Mr.

Chairman, that cutbacks that we have been subjected to in the past two and a half years in regard to various programs in the fields of health and other areas have contributed to the situation. The freeze insofar as day care, over the past two years, has contributed to a situation where more and more working mo thers are finding it , and had found it diff icult to participate in the work force, in many instances, totally impossible. - 53 4 -

Friday, 7 March 19 80 Luncheon after school - the refusal of this government to expand the luncheon after school program beyond that which it was in 1977, has made it increasing ly difficult for mothers, single parent mothers, to participate in the workforce. And as well, Mr . Chairman, we have a situation by which Unem ploym ent Insurance Commission proposals, ame ndments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, by the former Clark gover nment, have not eased the present situation, but have worked towards intensifying a situation of inequality.

And by that I am referring to proposals which were introduced by which there would be amendm ents - a two-tier form of ame ndm ent - which would cut back on the benefits to those workers who don't have dependants. And we know that in the usual situation insofar as the Unemployment Insurance Comm ission, it would be the male within the household that would be considered to have the dependants, and the female would not have been considered to have the dependants. The result is that the fema le would be prejudice against - federal policies that have contributed against the ensuring of equality within the workforce.

Unfortunately, what this is doing, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is to attempt to build up a reserve labour force, a secondary labour force, and that labour force is given the lowest priority during difficult economic times. During times of increasing economic stress, a slowdown in economic growth, it is the woman in the workforce that often is the most affected. And what, in fact, such proposals as those that were presented in Ottawa by the former Clark government, in fact, were worsening that situation. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to read a statement by economist Monica Townsend, which I believe sums up this impact very well, and I would like to read her comme nts pertaining to the effect of the proposed cnanges to the Unemployment Insurance Program: "Married women who will be expected to pay into the unemployment insurance scheme on the same basis as other workers would not be entitled to full benefits because they are considered secondary workers. And they are considered secondary workers because they do not make as big a contribution to family income as their husbands do." Of course ... MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, I am just wondering, the Leader of the Opposition is wandering substantially away from the Wom en's Bureau operation in Manitoba and he is getting into something relating to unemployment insurance, which certainly is a federal matter, and I wonder if he could keep his comments for a Federal Election, which is quite open and quite fair, but we are dealing with the operation of the Women's Bureau here in the Province of Manitoba. MR. DEPU TY CHAIRMAN, Mr. J.

Wally McKenzie (Roblin): I thank the Honourable Minister for his comm ents and I will be very careful and try and monitor the rem arks of the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to proceed. If he will kindly confine his remarks to I. (

c) Women's Bureau salaries which is what we are dealing with. MR. PA WL EY: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister had been listening, he would recognize that the premise of my rem arks deal with the ineffectiveness of the type of leadership which is provided by his ministry insofar that his ministry is not ... MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the point of order? MR. PA WL EY: Mr. Chairman, if I could complete my re marks ... MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the point of order or are you continuing with your speech? MR. PAWLEY: Yes. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: You are speaking to the point of order? MR.

PA WLEY: Does the Minister have a point of order then, Mr. Chairman? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am not sure. I am not sure, as I said here, because I just took the Chair a couple of moments ago, and I tried to listen as best I could. I suggest, just for the record and for the members of the House, if we can refer just to Salaries under the Women's Bureau, then the House will proceed. - 535 -

Friday, 7 March 19 80 MRS. JUNE WESTBURY (Fort Rouge): On the point of order, Mr . Chairperson, I do appreciate the fact that you weren't in the Chair earlier in this discussion. We have been talking about the entire subject of women in the workplace, under l. (c), this morning and yesterday. MR. DEPU TY CHAIRMAN: I have to inform the honourable me mber that just spoke - maybe she is new in the Legislature - that the rules here prevail, once you go off the Minister's Sala ry, prevail to the subject matter before us, and it is Women's Bureau, salaries only, that we are dealing with at the present time.

The Lead er of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr . Chairman, in view of the answer which you have provided to the Member for Fort Rouge, in which you are implying that the Member for Fort Rouge is incorrect , I can' t help but wonder if, in fact, you are ruling in favour of the Minister's point of order, that we are so restricted on our discussion of this subject matter that we cannot discuss the problems relating to women ••. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. That was not my intention. If I left that im pression with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, it was not my intention.

I said I would take it under consideration because of the fact that I just arrived in the Chair. My further remarks, I hope that the Leade r of the Opposition would confine his remarks to 1. (c)(

l) Wo men's Bureau - Salaries. MR. PAW LEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, just so that there be no misunderstanding, it is my view that we had been doing that for the past fifteen or twenty minutes and I intend to continue along the same route. I am discussing the Women's Bureau ••. MR. DEP UTY CHA IRMAN: Order please. I am sitting in the Chair; I am the Chairman of this Com mittee, and I will have to ask the Honourable Leader of the Opposition if he would be kind enough to refer his remarks to the Wom en's Bure au, 1. (c)(

l) Salaries. MR. PAW LEY : That is what I am doing. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, the Minister alleged that you were referring to matters no t related to salaries, such as the Unem ployment Insurance Comm ission. I think he had a point. I said I would listen to the debates and then I will monitor it very carefully and make a ruling, so I ask the Leader of the Opposition to proceed. MR. PAW LEY : Mr. Chairman, again, and unfortunately it is the Minister that has put you at sea , because your ruling is neither here nor there. I want to --(Interjection)-- Well, there hasn't been a ruling to challenge. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: My ruling is, and it is very clear, I am sure the members of the Committee understand, we are dealing in Estimates with the Labour and Manpower, Resolution 89 , l. (c)(l ), Women's Bureau, Salaries. MR. PAWLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's precisely as I am doing at the present time. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Acknowledging the fact before you do, Sir, that I am new, nevertheless I have sat through most of this debate for the past couple of days, and the only matter that it was suggested that I shouldn't be allowed to speak on, Sir •.. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. Are you speaking on a point of order or a point of privilege? MRS. WESTBURY: A point of order, Sir. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: A point of order? - 536 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MRS. WESTBURY: The point of order that has already been discussed, Sir. MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MRS. WESTBURY: When I spoke about women and trades, I was asked if I would delay that until we get to the Manpower Division, and of course I was properly rem inded that that comes under that Division; otherwise the discussion, Sir, this morning particularly, and perhaps the Honourable Member for Churchill, who was one of the chief speak ers this morning, can verify this, ranged far into the entire work field of women in Manitoba and the responsibilities of the Wom en's Bureau.

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge this too, because he was participating in the discussion. I am not saying we should talk about the Unemployment Insurance Progra m or anything like that, I am just saying that we were not required this morning to confine ourselves to the salaries under Wo men's Bureau. MR. DEP UTY CHA IRMAN: May I reply to the honourable me mber - and hopefully she will learn the Rules of the House after she has been here a little longer - and spell out that under Women's Bureau l.( c)(

l) Salaries, that we are dealing with, we basically under the Rules of this House can only deal with the salaries in that department of the Minister's that relates to the salaries of the people em ployed in the Women's Bureau. Now if the members want to go and stray wide over, then you're welcome to do that. I am at your mercy. I'm your chairman, and if that's the way you want to go •.. The Minister has already indicated he doesn't think we should go that way. We've been through this battle many, many times over the years, and members can espouse their points of order and their points of privilege.

It's not an easy job to sit in this Chair and try and sort it out, because the politicians in this roo m are a lot sma rter than I am and they can find ways and means to ge t around the rules. I am just asking, for the benefit of the me mbers and the House and the province of Manitoba, let us try and proceed under the estimates under the rules that we have and the estimates before us, Wo men's Bureau: (c)(

l) Salaries. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWA N: Speaking to the point of order very briefly, Mr. Chairperson, when the Minister opene d his remarks on this particular item under the estimates, he gave us a brief overview of some of the functions and some of the responsibilities of the Women's Bureau.

Now I don't have the Hansard before me, but I am certain that if you peruse Hansard tomorrow or the next day, at the next opportunity, you will note that he said words to the effect that the Bureau promotes greater understanding of women's problems and concerns, etc. and that was the opening for the discussion, the same item under which we are operating now, to discuss some of those concerns and what that particular Bureau was doing in regard to it.

I think my leader has justifiably so enunciated one of those concerns, be ing a specific concern in this instance, the concern to deal with unemployment insurance and how it affects women. And then I'm certain that my leader was intending to relate that to the activities of the Women's Bureau and to determine what it is exactly now the Women's Bureau is doing in regard to that, just as this morning I talked about affir mative action for the purpose of finding out where the Women's Bureau was proceeding.

I think that is a legitimate quest for opposition and so would hope that my leader would continue on that vein to find out more about what this department is doing for the women of this province, a responsibility that the Minister outlined in his opening re marks, which I believe gave us the opportunity to answer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Th the members of the comm ittee, I thank you very much for your co mments, your suggestions. I suggest in replying to the comme nts of the Honourable Member for Churchill, the rem arks that he is alleging to can be made under (c)

(2) Other Expenditures, which is a wide broad - it says Other Expenditures, it is very wide. I suggest to the committee, if we want to stay with the rules and run the House, I think the way it should be run on this item, if we can, and I don' t know if we can or not, that we deal strictly with salaries, then on Other Expenditures then I have a difficult time ruling on matters. But I would just like if we could keep the debate to salaries on this matter. MR. MILL ER: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. - 53 7 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. MILLER: Mr . Chairman, the distinction between salaries and others, I don't think you can hang your hat on that. The people are being paid a salary to do certain things. Their responsibility is not just to draw a salary but to generate certain ideas and execute certain programs and follow through on certain positions which the govern ment wants them to adopt. In this instance, I think it makes sense that the activities of the Women' s Bureau, for which people are being paid a salary, is what we are talking about. That's what the salary is all about.

Simply to ask whether the person is being paid one dollar more or less is really not very important and I don't think anybody is questioning how much they are being paid. So to suggest that it be limited to dollars, is what I think you are saying, is far too narrow and doesn't really serve the purpose of exploring what that particular branch does.

They're being paid a salary to addr ess themselves to the problems of women as outlined in their objectives, and I believe that my leader was sim ply discussing what these objectives are, what the purposes of the branch are, what these people who are being paid a salary are doing about protecting the rights of women in Manitoba in the labour force, and that is really what he was talking about, by using the example of perhaps unemployment insurance. He might have used other examples but that sim ply is a reference point and was not debating, as I could see it, the Unemployment Insurance Act as such. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well, to the me mbers of the comm ittee, I thank the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. He's a very learned member. He's been here many years. He knows the rules, and I think the record will show that he and I were elected the same year, but as a chairman of this comm ittee, my jurisdiction is that we are dealing with Resolution No. 89, (l )(

c) Wo men's Bureau, Salaries $143 ,2 00, and that is the subject matter before the House and I hope we will confine our remarks ..• I don't care if you want to stay here and debate my ruling. I would like very much - and I know I'll never have the last word - I just ask the membe rs to kindly confine their rem arks to salaries and the expenditure of $14 3,200, which the Minister of Labour is asking to be approved, and if you'd be kind enough then we could proceed. I have no quarrel. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAW LEY : Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your com ments and your suggestions. Mr.

Chairman, I was dealing with the problems pertaining to the ame ndments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. rm not going to go back to deal with that in great detail, but to point out that those ame ndm ents were working to the prejudice of women in the workforce. Now we have the Women's Bureau, me mbers of that bureau are paid salaries. I assume that they are paid salaries in order to monitor legislation that is being presented by the federal government, by other provincial administrations, and from time to time hopefully, Mr.

Chairman, to take stands pertaining to that legislation if it's contrary to the interests of women in the workforce. So that when the Minister rises to speak later to this subject matter, I would be interested in hearing the Minister's co mme nts as to whether the Women's Bureau did research pertaining to the effects, the impact of proposed changes to the Unem ployment Insurance Comm ission, to women in the workforce , whether he himself took a position as the Minister responsible for the Women's Bureau pertaining to this, or did he sim ply let the proposals go by without comment.

Secondly, I believe that insofar as the entire question of women in the workforce, that the forme r Minister of Labour, I remembe r early in her days as Minister of Labour, expressed a conviction that there should be movement towards equal pay for work of equal value. And reme mber that members were rather interested in the thought that the forme r Minister of Labour .•. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll have to re mind the Honourable Leader of the Opposition again, I'm really concerned now that he has learned through his years of experience to get around my ruling, and that's easy to do.

I would hope that the honourable me mber would finally get back - do we approve this $143,200, or we don't approve it , or where are we going? He's into the speeches of the former Minister. We're on unemployment insurance. The Honourable Me mber for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (K ildonan): I would like to assist you and re mind you that we are discussing a departmental Estimate. There is a certain sum involved. It comes under a heading, but it also has some duties to do as a department.

And, if we cannot debate what that department does except say "yes" or ''no" to the amo unt of money, then we may as well close shop. Now I think, Sir, if you will kindly look at what kind of debates we have had in the - 53 8 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 past, you will realize that we are entitled to discuss the philosophy and the actions of that department under Salaries. MR. DEPU TY CHA IRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. HA RRY J. EN NS (La keside): Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, I appreciate that you, Sir, are attempting to handle the discussion of these Estimates in the correct way. I also appreciate that honourable members opposite, and I acknowledge when we were opposite, that that wasn't always done.

We have, though, made some significant changes in the way we approach these Estimates, by dropping off to the bottom, for instance, the Minister's remuneration item which, by tradition, has given us the opportunity, all members, to discuss in the broadest terms, the entire philosophy, the approach of this Minister or of this gover nment on the subject matter that involves the entire department. Having, by agree ment, chosen to not discuss that item in the first instance when the Estimates come up, but ra ther latterly, the procedure that you are attempting to enforce, Sir, is entirely correct.

The question is Salaries. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that the salaries provided for under this item aren't sufficient for the Women's Bureau to do the job that he is concerned about, if he thinks that they need more manpower, better salar ies to do the necessary research that he thinks the Wo men's Bureau ought to be doing, that's the item that quite legitimately could be discussed under this item. And that, Sir, is all that you are asking the members to do.

But, I would have to take strongest objection to the re marks made by the former Speaker of this House, who should have some understanding of the rules, that when we are going on the line-by-line consideration, it is not the opportunity to discuss, in broadest terms, the entire philosophy of this Minister and this department. That occasion arises, has always been there for us, when we discuss the Minister's salary.

Now, for instance, I have some objections, Sir, to the way we carry out the rules because, in my belief, we should be discussing the Minister's salary first, and then everybody can get off their chest the broad and wide-ranging debates that they would like to bring to a department, and then proceed on the line-by-line, item-by-item discussion. However, we've chosen this way, and I would have to support you in your attempt to carry out that ruling. MR. FOX: Mr.

Chairman, I would just like to indicate to the Minister of Government Services that I'm sure that he doesn't just say to an em ployee that he's going to hire, here's the number of dollars, and that's it. He would like to know what capabilities he has, what experience, and what he's going to do, and those things are outlined. Now, if we're going to pass these Estimates and this Salary am ount, then we would like to know what that department is doing , how it's doing it and --(Interjection)-- I would suggest that I did not interrupt the Honourable Minister.

I would hope he would have the same courtesy and not interrupt me while I am trying to state my point. I am just suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to pass the Estimates for the amo unt of money that is being asked for, we would like to know what the department is doing, how it's doing it, whether it's doing it efficiently, inefficiently, or other wise, and that is the thrust of my leade r's remarks. MR. DEPU TY CHAIRMAN: I again thank the honourable mem bers for your comm ents. We've been through this many many times. I have a difficult problem as a Chairman.

Maybe I shouldn't be sitting in the Chair. Of course, you know what you can do if you don't like my ruling; you can challenge the ruling. But , as I sit here this afternoon as your Chairman, I want to proceed with these Estimates as fast as I can. And rm asking you to just confine your remarks to the item that we're dealing with. Women's Bureau, Resolution 89 l .(c) - do we approve the salaries of $1 43, 200, or don't we?

I have already expressed comme nts to the Member for Churchill that if you want to get into a wide-ranging debate, Other Expenditures, then you can go into that field, and rm with you all the way. But I'm just asking us, on this item, stay with Salaries. On the next item, we can go into wide - because I have a difficult time ruling on the next item on matters, because it says Other Expenditures. Proceed. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Oh, rm sorry, the Honourable Minister. I apologize. He was on his feet be fore ... - 5 39 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. MacMASTER: I'm not speaking on the point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to speak on the point of order, that's fine. I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to others, the Me mbers for Kildonan and Fort Rouge and Churchill have certainly been here the last few hours.

They have heard the description of the titles of the people that work within the department, they have been told the type of work that they do - not once, sev eral times in var ious ways - the people that are paid to do the work, they have been told the research methods, they've been told the kind of research projects they're in, and maybe what the Leader of the Opposition is leading into will be repetitious to what we've been through the last couple of very good hours, I think. MR. DEP UTY CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWA N: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Speaking to that, I have to agree with the Minister that we have gone through this particular department in some detail, and there is more detail that we will have to cover as soon as we have settled the matter before us. But in speaking to what the Minister did say, he must be aware that we are operating now in two committees, and that I believe my leader, as former Attorney-General of the province, was in the committee review ing the Attorney-General's Estimates this morning and didn't have the opportunity to discuss with us much of the detail that the Minister talked about.

And so I see no reason why, at the given moment, the Leader of the Opposition should not be allowed to come in here and acquaint himself with some of what had gone on earlier, and to make his presentation. I believe all he is trying to do is make a presentation to this committee, and at the same time elicit some information so that he may better understand the department.

I think that if we allow him to proceed in suc h a manner, we will clear this matter up much quicker than if we become involved in these sort of procedural wrangles which I don't believe are speeding the process up at all, although they may be necessary. I'm not going to comment on whether they are necessary or not. But I do know that they are slowing it down, and I, for one, would like in the most conciliatory manner possible to move through these Estimates as quickly as is possible. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I thank the honourable member. I can associate myself with his concern in this particular matter.

For years, I have been trying to find how I can be at both committees at the same time, and I recogn ize the problem that the Me mber for Fort Rouge has. She almost needs running shoes to go back and forth to the various comm ittees and get her remarks on the record regarding various Estimates. It's a difficult matter and I recognize the problem of the official Leader of the Opposition. But the rules that are before us, and the Estimate that rm supposed to be chairing this afternoon is Wom en's Bureau, Salaries, $14 3,200.00.

I have already indicated to membe rs of the committee that if you want to go in a wider-ranging debate, you can do it on Other Expenditures. But I have a difficult thing, as your Chairman, to try and let you have that wide-ranging deb ate under this item, l. (c)(l ). Under 2., I think the debate can be more freewheeling because it says "Other Expenditures". The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WIL LIAM JENKINS (Log an): Well, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have to beg to differ with you on what other expenditures are.

Unless there is a new method of preparing the Estimates, Other Expenditures are pencils, papers, supplies. They are not the things that you have been stating. I can appreciate, I sat down in that Chair for many years. It is not the easiest job in the world to make the ruling. But I think that the Leader of the Opposition, my leader, has been trying to present a point of view, which is dealing with the Women's Bureau, what their work is, and I have some questions myself that I am going to test you on a little further when we get into this debate, because I just don't know where they should be.

But they are dealing with women, and they deal with another

section of the Estimates. I will abide by your ruling at that time, but I think that the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to point out - and after all, we were chastized by the First Minister during the Throne Speech Debate that we we re not coming forth with ideas. Well, I think the Honourable Lea der of the Opposition, my leader , is now presenting some ideas for the Minister to consider. You can accept them or reject, them and I think that is all he was attempting to do. - 540 -

Friday, 7 March 1980 MR. DEPU TY CHAIR MAN: Well, I am ba ck to Square One if the members of the Comm ittee - so if you want to have a wide-ranging debate we'll go back to the Minister's Salary, then we can talk about everything. rn try and monitor it. Here is the Chairman coming back and he will likely clear it up. The Honourable Lea der of the Opposition. MR. PA WL EY: To the point of order, I am attempting to restrict myself to the Women's Bureau. I don't believe you have heard me deal with any subject that was wide-ranging or dealt with the Department as a whole, or the ministry as a whole.

The items which I have been dealing with have been those items dealing to the functions, as I perceive, and the Minister can very well disagr ee, that is his entitlement. But what I perceive to be functions of the Women's Bureau, areas that the Wom en's Bureau should be researching, that he as Minister responsible for the Women's Bureau ought to be requesting of that Bureau and the staff of that Bureau to develop and to work upon.

I don't want to, under Other Expenditures, when we are supposed to be discussing the amo unt of money for pencils and the amo unt of money spent on paper, to find myself again restricted, Mr. Chairman. So that in proceeding with this area of equal pay for equal value, and if it has been dealt with, fine, I will read the Minister's answers in the Hansard later.

But I would trust that with the initial burst of enthusiasm that was expressed from the former Minister of Labour, that in fact this Minister and the Wom en's Bureau have been doing some endeavouring pertaining to that to bring us some reports so that we can proceed in what I think, Mr. Chairman, is a very im portant direction that ought to be undertaken. Thirdly, rm interested, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not the Wo men's Bureau had been monitoring and doing an effective analysis as to the effects of various cutbacks pertaining to women in the workforce.

And by there, I am referring to cutbacks insofar as freezing, insofar as Day Care Pro grams are concerned over the past two years; the impact upon the freezing of the Lunch and After School Prog ram; all programs, Mr. Chairman, that permitted th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-12b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 12b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e42c0db2d756404d45184220fc02d10bb66aa32a

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