4th-36th Vol. 56-Committee of Supply-Justice

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe honourable members might agree to waive private members' hour today.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive private members' hour? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Yes, Madam Speaker, I ask that because I think that we will probably waive another private members' hour between now and Thursday and then have two private members' hours on Thursday morning. That is why I raised that, but we needed to do that for today in any event.

Madam Speaker, I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the sequence for consideration of Estimates as outlined in Sessional Paper 142 tabled on March 24, 1998, and subsequently amended many times, to consider in the House the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources. These changes are to apply until further notice.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to change the sequence for the consideration of Estimates in the House to consider the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources, these changes to apply until further notice? Is there unanimous consent to agree to the sequence change? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I wish to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the sequence for consideration of Estimates as outlined in Sessional Paper 142 tabled on March 24, 1998, and subsequently amended, to consider in Room 255 the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. These changes are to apply until further notice.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to alter the sequence of the Estimates in Room 255 to consider the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and these changes to apply until further notice? Is there unanimous consent? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

Just for the clarification of the committee, we do not need unanimous consent to revert to line 1(b).

* (1440)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, this is my first opportunity to speak on these Estimates other than a point of order I made earlier during this committee. As I said during that point of order, there are many, many important issues other than what has already been brought up in Justice. Unfortunately, being the second party in opposition here, I have to wait my opportunity, and this could not have come at a worst time for me this afternoon. I have some important issues. I was helping our Maples Youth Justice Committee prepare for their AGM. I tried to arrange for another time, but I am going to try to stay as long as possible and cover as many of important items, that I had mentioned earlier, as I can.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Just on a point of order, I am certainly willing to accommodate the member for The Maples, but I assume we have been unable to reach an accommodation between the House leaders? Is that correct?

Mr. Kowalski: On the same point of order, my understanding is that there was not any other department that was ready to come in here, and these are the Estimates hours. So we would be proceeding from this point on and proceed--it is either passed, this department has passed, or otherwise.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples, to continue.

Mr. Kowalski: Yes, I wonder if we could revert to 4.1.(b) Executive Support.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for The Maples, as I mentioned, the committee does not require unanimous consent to revert to 4.1.(b)(1) Executive Support (1) Salary and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Kowalski: Mr. Chair, because this is my first opportunity to speak on these Estimates, I will be bringing up to sort of give the minister forewarning so that he could prepare. One of the things I will like to discuss is about the possibility and what information, what statistics has been done about a possible provincial police college in Manitoba, following on the lines of the B.C. Criminal Justice Institute, Maritimes Police College, and exploring what are the impediments to doing that in Manitoba; what would be the advantages, the disadvantages, and to get some cost figures and whatever we can from his department. I have a feeling that this would be an area that possibly would be of a great service to Manitoba.

Right now, as mentioned earlier, there are five Brandon police officers that are leaving the Brandon Police Service after the taxpayers of Brandon have invested the money to train them, and now they are losing that investment. I understand that the Winnipeg Police Service are looking at similar out-migration of trained staff. You have a different environment in the Maritimes where people who want to go into a police career go and pay a tuition. They go and they get a diploma from their college there in police--I am not sure what they call it--police science or whatever. They pay for their training, and it is part of their Police Act that in order to be on a municipal police force, you have to have such a degree in order to be a police officer.

I think the other example, the B.C. Criminal Justice Institute, does not only cover police officers but emergency workers, ambulance, firefighters, and, I believe it is on campus. So there is the benefit of the officers who are being trained there, taking courses with other university students. The ideal situation, the vision--I do not know if it is attainable, I do not even know if a Lloyd Axworthy could make it happen--is to have a police science program at one of our universities, make it a requirement that police officers in Manitoba have such a degree. It would add to the professionalism of police officers. I think some of the criticisms we have seen in the justice system, the police and some of their actions, I think there would be a second thought about making them. We expect a lot of our police officers, and yet we accept them with a Grade 12 education. It is not necessary to get on the police force to have anything higher than that. We give them limited training, and yet we expect them to have the wisdom of Solomon. We expect them to be able to deal with medical matters, banking matters, as accountants. We expect so much of them. So that is one of the areas that I will be talking about during this Estimates process.

The other area, and I think it might be in this here, is I received the news release from the federal Minister of Justice announcing the youth justice strategy. I know that this Minister of Justice, as the previous Minister of Justice, has never hesitated to advise the federal Minister of Justice on any matters, and I have some specific questions about what has been said by the federal Minister of Justice about this youth justice strategy. There are some cost implications to Manitoba. Before I ask any specific question, I wonder if the minister would indicate his views on Canada's youth justice renewal strategy that has been put out by the federal Justice minister.

Mr. Toews: I thank the member for The Maples for his question. I will not deal with the issue on the provincial police college proposal right now, but I do want to comment very briefly on the youth justice strategy announced by the federal government. I know that this member has been very active not only as a police officer in respect of youth justice issues, I know that he has been involved with the community that he lives in as a member or a consultant to the youth justice committee there. So I know that his interests in this area are genuine and followed by a lot of action on his part.

One of the issues relating to the youth justice strategy by the federal government--in respect to this youth justice strategy, I want to say that we know, not just from polls but from our constituents, that the issue of youth justice is a particularly perplexing one. It is concerning many constituents. There is a real loss of confidence in the Young Offenders Act. I know that in the prairie provinces, for example, I saw some results of a poll that were shared with all ministers of Justice by the federal Minister of Justice, and I understand that the approval rating of the Young Offenders Act in western Canada, and I believe, particularly, the prairie provinces, was at about 12 percent. So there was a real lack of confidence in that particular act. So we as a government, and indeed some of my colleagues from Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, have asked the federal government to consider specific changes to the Young Offenders Act to ensure that the confidence of the people of Canada is retained in our justice system, and in those areas where it has fallen far below acceptable levels, that we in fact improve that.

* (1450)

One of the matters, because we were not all agreed on what steps should be taken to improve the Young Offenders Act, one of the areas where we were I believe all unanimous was the issue of cost implications for programming under the Young Offenders Act and any youth justice strategy.

When the Young Offenders Act was passed in 1984, we had a working partnership with the federal government that saw the provinces pay 50-cent dollars and the federal government match that as well. The provinces paid those 50 cents, even though it was in fact a federal program. Traditionally, governments in this area have worked together by delegation or otherwise to ensure that criminal justice policy is carried out on a uniform basis across Canada. Unfortunately, what we have seen over the last number of years is a reduction of that federal contribution to the extent that last year the federal government advised us--and I might say that this was before this current Justice minister was appointed, that is, the current federal Justice minister was appointed--that the federal contribution was proposed to go down to about 30 percent from the current 33 which has fallen from the 50 percent. Not only that, the federal government, in fact, indicated to us that they would be stripping the funding out of our youth institutions, so that 100 percent of the funding essentially in our youth institutions would come from provincial dollars, even though we are carrying on that program on behalf of the federal government.

What they indicated is that they wanted to see more community programming occur. Now, I concur with more community programming; I think of some of our Justice initiatives in terms of the urban sports camps. The one that has been quite a success is the Turtle Island one. We have opened one up in west Broadway, and hopefully within the next year we will open up another one, which I think is a very important part of Manitoba's youth justice strategy. But, again, these all cost money. We are committed to going in that direction, but at the same time we cannot leave our citizens vulnerable to dangerous offenders who need to be incarcerated whether they are youth or not.

My belief is that when youth are incarcerated, suitable programming must be offered. It is simply not good enough for the federal government to say we are supporting community programming and turning a blind eye on the institutions such as Agassiz Youth Centre where I think the staff are doing a remarkably good job under difficult circumstances and, again, the Manitoba Youth Centre as well.

So do I support some of the directions that the federal minister has indicated she is going in? Yes, I do support those directions. Do I think she has gone far enough in respect of legislation and funding? I think there could be much more improvement in the area of legislation, and whatever is done we know carries with it a dollar cost, and we want to see the federal government's commitment in that respect. The details are still fairly sketchy, so I do not want to be judgmental at too early a time, but given the past track record of the federal government in this area, I do have concerns.

Mr. Kowalski: This is an area where I have heard the minister talk about it a number of times, and I want to understand it so I can explain it to my constituents, this idea of what is a federal responsibility that they should be spending the dollars on. People find this confusing out in the public. There is only one taxpayer, and they do not understand which pocket it comes out of, which source of revenue, but I wonder if you could help me out and simplify it.

You say that this is a federal responsibility, the justice system, the corrections programs and that, yet you have said that at one point there is agreement on 50 percent dollars. How does it become a federal responsibility? Is that right from the Constitution, and yet, if that is true, then why did it become 50 percent dollars, and how is it becoming this? Is this by agreement? How did it come to be that way, that the federal money should be spent on certain things and provincial money on others? I know I am asking a very simple question here, but I will ask the patience of the minister to explain it, so I can explain it to my constituents.

Mr. Toews: It is a favourite area of mine, so I have a lot to say on that area. I will try to be concise and I think to the point.

Under our federal system of government, the federal Parliament has certain responsibilities on the one hand, and the provincial Legislature has responsibilities on the other. One of the specific assignments to the federal Parliament is criminal law and criminal procedure, so that any criminal laws that are passed, for example under the Criminal Code, under the Young Offenders Act, which is criminal law, the Bail Reform Act, the Narcotics Control Act, and other similar acts--indeed their allegation is that Bill C-68 is passed under that same criminal law power. So they have the capacity, the legal capacity or the constitutional capacity, to pass criminal law, and under that basis, they passed the Young Offenders Act.

At the same time, the province has responsibility for the administration of justice, so they need to set up certain courts, but that does not give them authority over the substantive statutes that the courts would consider. That still remains with the federal Parliament.

* (1500)

The tradition has been in Canada that the federal Parliament has delegated the responsibility of prosecuting to the provincial attorneys general. In certain areas, they have chosen not to delegate that, and that is under the Narcotics Control Act, so even though the Narcotics Control Act is a federal statute, the federal government continues to prosecute that. We have no constitutional right as a province to insist we will prosecute that.

Similarly, the federal government could tomorrow say, in my opinion, we will now prosecute any offence under the Young Offenders Act; we will now prosecute any offence under the Criminal Code. Where it comes to the issue of the specific Young Offenders Act programming, what the federal government has purported to do, or the federal Parliament has purported to do, is to say to the province, you shall do this in terms of various responsibilities under the act.

The Constitution is clear that we have responsibilities for provincial jails, and traditionally that has been prisoners sentenced to two years less a day or less. Now, under the Young Offenders Act, prisoners can be sentenced for much greater time than two years. Indeed, the Young Offenders Act is really an exception to the criminal justice system that did not exist at the time of Confederation. But there was recognition that juvenile offenders, juvenile delinquents, young offenders, were an exceptional case. So I believe the first act that was passed, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, would have been about 1907, and there was a sharing of responsibility, not constitutionally required, but I think it was done in the best interests of all Canadians, recognizing that local administration of statutes is sometimes a very good idea so that they can address local concerns.

That cost sharing and sharing of duties under that act continued right until 1984, when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was repealed and the Young Offenders Act came about. Again, I think, in a spirit of co-operative federalism, everybody said 50 cents-50 cents, so that the federal government would contribute 50 cents and we would as a province contribute 50 cents, not because, I think, it was constitutionally required, but because it was seen in the best interests of all parties concerned.

The Young Offenders Act is not simply a criminal justice statute. Perhaps that is where its constitutional basis is, but there are social aspects which the province has, I think, an interest in ensuring are addressed as well in the legislation. What better way to ensure that that input from a provincial point of view is continued than by having that kind of act of participation by provincial officials. So it is an exception that I do not think is constitutionally required, and I do not think I have seen it suggested anywhere that it is constitutionally required.

The same situation but mirrored is, we find, in the Health area, where we have Health being an area of provincial responsibility, but the federal government, through its taxing power, funded 50-cent dollars at the beginning of the implementation of medicare. But there we have a situation where the constitutional responsibility is the province and the feds simply kick in dollars. Now, the federal contribution has decreased to about, in actual dollar terms, 15 percent. We can argue about that number up and down, but it is nowhere near the 50-cent dollars that used to occur. So, again, there was seen in that case, because the federal government had the stronger taxing power and the access to money and the desire for national standards, that there was a vested social interest in federal participation.

Similarly, but, again, mirror image in this situation, where it is a federal program, the province believed that there was a vested interest to participate in the delivery of this program, not that there is a constitutional responsibility but, I think, for very pragmatic, federal reasons. I hope that helps the member.

Mr. Kowalski: Yes, thanks. That helps a great deal. It raises some other questions, like when there was this agreement to go to 50-cent dollars, if it is going to be decreased any more, does it have to be a bilateral agreement? Or can the federal government arbitrarily--the minister tells me that when this went to 50-cent dollars, it was by agreement of all the provinces then. Now he is saying that the federal government, if I understand him correctly, is unilaterally reducing it to less than 50 percent. Is that correct?

Mr. Toews: I think that is correct that they are purporting to do it unilaterally. When I became minister back in January of 1997, that was one of the first issues that was brought to my attention, that it was sort of seen as a fait accompli that the federal government would continue to dictate the fact that their reductions would continue and that the province was powerless to do anything. I guess many of our officials in the provincial government took that point of view because that was also happening in Health.

It was happening in respect of First Nations people off reserves. I mean, what we have seen the federal government do with First Nations people off reserve is costing the taxpayers of Manitoba an additional $20 million a year unilaterally that they cut off. They said, well, we might have the responsibility or the constitutional authority, but once they come into the urban areas, then we have now decided on a policy basis that you will now deal with the financial needs of those First Nations people. That is not something that is mandated by the constitution. The federal government still has a responsibility and constitutional authority to deal with First Nations people anywhere in Canada, whether they are on reserve lands or off reserve. They have simply exercised a policy decision saying: we will cut those people off.

I guess when the officials see these things happening in that context, it is quite discouraging, and perhaps people do not want to aggravate the federal government, because they do hold the bigger taxing power and the purse strings. When this was brought to my attention, that the federal government was now continuing in this unilateral way--and I can only say that these were not negotiations between the provincial government and the federal government, the federal government simply announced that we are reducing it another 3 percent, plus we are stripping all the money out of youth institutions, and how do you want to see this occur? I mean, that was sort of the attitude.

What I said to my staff is, no, they cannot do that. This is their responsibility. We are working together with them to try and solve this problem, and for them to act in such an arbitrary and unilateral fashion is simply unacceptable. So we basically told them, I guess in about March of '97, that we will not accept any further reductions; that, indeed, we will consider a constitutional reference to clarify the fact that their liability under the Constitution is for 100 percent of this programming, plus that they could not force any provincial employee to carry out a federally mandated piece of legislation.

I might say this is not a unique kind of a situation in a federal state. For example, in the United States, just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a statute that purported to require state officials to carry out the provisions of a federal act. The Supreme Court of the United States says that violated the separation of powers. In my opinion, the requirement of forcing a provincial government to expend monies without specific approval of that legislative mandate by that province is as basic as Magna Carta. One cannot simply unilaterally say to the House of Commons or any legislative body in the Commonwealth that you will carry out this responsibility.

* (1510)

These legislatures, the Parliament, are constitutionally independent of each other. That is the separation of powers that the federal government and federal Parliament appear to have forgotten. It is not that we do not want to work with the federal government. I would be very pleased to work with the federal government in their youth justice strategy, but it is one thing to announce a strategy, it is quite another thing then to say: oh, and by the way, the provinces will pay for it, not us.

Let me just finish very quickly. The same issue in Bill C-68. Exactly the same issue, where they said, this is our law, but you will carry it out. Our government, along with Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Territories, said: no, this is your law; you will carry it out and you will pay for it.

I just might indicate that Mr. Rob Finlayson, the assistant deputy minister responsible for Prosecutions, is with us as well, and Mr. Greg Graceffo, the assistant deputy minister of Corrections, is here as well. [interjection]

Mr. Kowalski: No, that was not a question. No. That was not the question on the record. My question is--I would like a commitment from this minister. You know, I will stand up for Manitoba. I will stand up that we get the money we need for these very worthwhile programs, but I will use an analogy here.

Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

If two divorced parents are fighting over who should pay for the need of a child, the child should not go without that need fulfilled. When these initiatives start coming forward under this Canada's justice renewal strategy, I would like a commitment from the minister that if there are positive programs, if there are things that are going to be effective in dealing with youth justice, and you will notice I used the word "effective." I noticed throughout these news releases that they use words other than "effective." They talk about meaningful consequences; I am more concerned about effective consequences. But, if there are programs and issues being brought forward by the federal Justice minister, and the federal Justice minister is asking the province to pay, if this minister, our provincial Minister of Justice, sees the value in those programs, he will not let them lie just because of a dispute over the federal Justice minister.

I know he has to be responsible to the taxpayers of Manitoba; but, just as two divorced parents could stand up on the principle that they are not responsible, the need of a child and the need of the youth and the need of the community to deal with this youth justice issue have to be met. I hope there will be no posturing and that effective programs will not get undone because of that dispute.

Mr. Toews: Well, I think the analogy raised by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) is particularly appropriate. One of the things that is always a matter of concern in a divorce--and we are certainly not talking about divorce; we are talking about partners. I recognize the analogy. One of the things that the courts always look to is who can pay. So, if the father, let us say, is a millionaire and the mother is on social assistance, it would not be equitable, I would suggest, that if there was a question of child maintenance the mother pay the same amount as the father. I think that we recognize the issue of equity, and that needs to be addressed.

The taxing power of the federal Parliament, which is not limited to simply direct taxation, as is the case of the province, but also extends to indirect taxation, creates a huge, huge cash pool that the province simply has no access to. So, if the divorce analogy is appropriate, I think what we look at is equity. I prefer to look at the situation as one of partnerships where all partners benefit from working together. What I can tell the member is that I am committed to working together with the federal Justice minister who I think has many good ideas, and we need to work together.

But what I do not like to see is the unilateral federalism that we have seen over the past number of years and not simply limited to the current Liberal federal government but what we saw with the past Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney who unilaterally abrogated statutory and contractual rights relating to the Canada Assistance Plan, absolutely no regard for the financial commitments that provinces had to make on an ongoing basis, and I was very proud of representing the provincial government in that CAP reference before the Supreme Court of Canada. So, for me, it is not an issue of who the federal government is, whether they are Liberals, whether they are Conservatives or whether they are another party. I am committed to working with that federal government, but one has to recognize the realities of our Constitution and the taxing power.

So will I make commitments on behalf of the Legislature to expend monies? No, I will not. That is a matter that the Legislature will commit to. I am committed to working with the federal Justice minister, and I am committed to sharing the ideas that are brought forward both by my department and the federal Justice minister, but, ultimately, it is the Legislature that I respect because that is the voice of the people who make the determination as to whether to spend money on programs.

Mr. Kowalski: I am part of the Legislature, and I am bringing my voice and the voice of my constituents here who are telling me they do not want two different levels of government arguing while children are in need, whether it is in social services or if there are beneficial programs that are out there or are going to be brought forward. Yes, the minister says he will listen to the Legislature, but the minister brings forward a budget, and the minister, along with the cabinet, can present Orders-in-Council that will expend money. So I think I am just trying to make a point here, that many of my constituents do not like to see levels of government fighting while there is an obvious need, and that is what I am addressing.

I will move on to another area in this Canada's youth justice renewal strategy, and I think this one, there will be no problem with getting agreement. One of the major problems with the Young Offenders Act that I have seen from different perspectives and I hear from the police community is voluntary statements and the complexities dealing with getting voluntary statements. It seems every time that the police develop a procedure, another decision is handed down in court, and, once again, the police are hampered from doing proper investigations.

* (1520)

I have always found it is so inconsistent with what we do as parents when we tell our six-year-old, always tell the truth; if you have done something wrong, admit it. Then our Justice system, what do we tell our young offenders? Do not say anything; talk to your lawyer. There is such an inconsistency, and now with the complexities involved with the Young Offenders, with getting statements admitted voluntarily, it has hampered police amazingly. I see that one of the bullets in this news release from the federal Minister of Justice is that one of the objectives of this new legislation will be to reduce the legal complexities and determine whether voluntary statements by youth can be admitted as evidence.

I would like an assurance from the minister--I do not think there will be any problem here--that he fully supports that and if his department has looked, even from a provincial level, at what we could do to assist the police to make our communities safer by helping them with this impediment to doing good police investigations, the complexities involved in taking voluntary statements from the youth of Manitoba.

Mr. Toews: Well, I am very pleased to see that the member for The Maples believes that that is, in fact, the federal Justice minister's intent on the basis of that new release. One of the things that my colleagues from Alberta, Ontario, P.E.I. and myself specifically raised with the federal Justice minister was--and this was raised with her in December of last year--that we wanted an amendment to permit the admission into evidence of a voluntary statement given to a person in authority at the discretion of the youth court notwithstanding certain technical breaches, provided that the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute. I have spoken on many occasions to police officers. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of their police work.

Again, this is an example, not where the province has been fighting with the federal government but, in fact, has been making, I think, constructive suggestions. So I am pleased if that is what the federal Justice minister is going to do. I am not so certain that is going to happen in fact, but I am pleased that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) sees that as happening. I would certainly expect from him that he would meet with his Liberal colleagues--because I understand he still may be a Liberal--and raise that concern, because he probably has access to people with power that may not be available to me. So I certainly am very pleased to see that the member for The Maples takes that position, not just on behalf of our police forces, but for the betterment of the administration of justice in Canada.

One of the things that needs to be, I think, explored--and I do not want to go into too much detail--but the member has touched upon an issue that is central to the philosophy of the Young Offenders Act vis-a-vis the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was never seen as an adversarial act in the same way that the Young Offenders Act is. There was a fundamental change in philosophy from the Juvenile Delinquents Act to the Young Offenders Act where the idea was that young offenders under the new act would be treated more like criminally responsible adults. Yet the effect of many of the technical sections and, I think, the lack of responsiveness of certain of the other sections created the same problems that the Juvenile Delinquents Act did in another context.

Now I see a lot of value in more of a restorative justice philosophy in a statute dealing with young offenders, not the same adversarial approach that the Parliament has adopted in the Young Offenders Act and the courts have enforced through the application of the Charter of Rights. The Charter of Rights certainly lends itself to a much more legalistic application of the Young Offenders Act than perhaps even people back in 1984, 1985 envisaged.

One of the matters, again on a similar vein, was the Child Welfare Act. When one looks at the old child welfare acts, and perhaps similarly The Child and Family Services Act now, the intention was never to have a formal, adversarial process when children were the issue. What is the benefit of having an adversarial process when what we are talking about in the child welfare context is the life of a child? When I prosecuted child welfare cases on behalf of agencies, I took a much more conciliatory approach, because it was not an issue of winning the case, that is, getting a permanent order on behalf of the agency. I felt my responsibility was ensuring what the best interests of the child were. In many cases, that did not mean that I should rigorously cross-examine an uneducated, distraught parent who was not capable of often articulating his or her position very well on the stand. So I never took that position in child welfare cases.

Yet what we see over a period of years of that Child Welfare Act was a movement from what they called hearings, not trials, to in fact full-blown adversarial trials. I think that we lost something in that transition. What we keep on seeing is the Legislature amending this Child and Family Services Act to ensure that we keep having that kind of more conciliatory approach, and we see other influences at play that bring out the adversarial aspect of that. I do not always think the adversarial process is a healthy process when we are dealing with the future of children.

So the Juvenile Delinquents Act, we saw the same tendency moving from a nonadversarial, paternalistic--and I use that word in a positive sense--approach to an adversarial approach. I frankly do not think that has been in the best interests of youth over the years. So what I hear the federal government saying in terms of its youth strategy and the emphasis on reconciliation and community justice programs and being more inclusive of programming like the community justice committees or healing programs, I am in full agreement with that because I think that is a healthy, healthy development. But how we maintain that balance is always a difficult thing.

So I support the member's call for the reduction of the legal complexities, which, I think, are detrimental to many of our youth, and so, indeed, not only do I support it, we recommended that last year specifically to the federal Justice minister. Again, I look forward to the member's support on that type of legislation.

Mr. Kowalski: The minister prefaced his comments by talking about the amount of influence I have and the amount of influence he has. He cannot have it both ways. When the federal government does something positive, he is quick to say: yes, we told them about that six months ago. When they do something that is unpopular, he says, well, I do not have any influence over the federal government, maybe the member for The Maples has more influence. You cannot have it both ways.

There are ministers of Justice meetings. He has a great deal of influence, and that is why I am bringing these things forward, because, as a member of the Manitoba Legislature, I want my Minister of Justice, who represents this province, and I am bringing forward the viewpoints so that he will take some of these comments and suggestions forward when he is dealing with the federal Justice minister.

On that vein, one of the other things that came out of the Canada's justice renewal strategy press release was that one of the things--the new act will have a statement of principles and objectives. It quotes the proposal that amongst the principles of justice as stating that protecting society is the main goal of criminal law, including the new justice law. The statement will also make clear that prevention, meaningful consequences, and rehabilitation are the essential components and complementary components of the youth justice system.

* (1530)

What I am bringing forward to this minister here is that "meaningful consequences" is not the term that should be used. The word "effective" has to be in there. Meaningful consequences is a political statement, dealing with the public perception that youth crime is out of control, that deals with a political agenda. Meaningful to whom? Meaningful to the public or to the youth or to the victim? I think in this statement of principles and, if our minister, provincial Minister of Justice, has input into this legislation at the next ministers of Justice meetings, I would like that changed in that legislation, that meaningful, effective consequences would be one of those three components in the principles of the new criminal justice act.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

Mr. Toews: Well, I happen to like the word "effective" as well. In fact, many words such as "meaningful," and the other one I find that way, the word "tough," have political connotations that mean different things to different people. I think the word "effective" speaks of the implementation of certain policy goals. So, do certain measures bring about certain policy goals? Are they effective in doing that? I think that is a much more objective, neutral word that says much more than simply a political statement, so the member's suggestion is in fact a very good one.

Before we are accused here of simply dealing with words, sometimes words are very, very important in order to convey a message. I think a word like "effective" is a much more inclusive word than a word like "tough." Just the word "tough" may alienate certain people who may believe exactly the same thing as people who say: I want tough measures.

I agree with the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that that is a good thing. The issue that he may have more influence in certain circles was certainly not an attempt by me to say that I will not exercise my influence wherever I can in respect of these issues, but I think that the member for The Maples does himself a great injustice by simply referring to himself as only one person. He is a member of the Manitoba Legislature, elected by a number of people who have tremendous faith in his abilities to communicate their positions. I know that I think he was simply being modest when he stated his position. We know him to be a much more influential and capable person than he would perhaps even admit.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I did have a number of questions that I was wanting to ask on this whole area. I am not too sure, in terms of how the minister is actually proceeding, if he is dealing with the entire department, whatever it is that we would like.

I wanted to address, then, some very specific questions that I have. It has been an interesting process over the last 10 years as a legislator as I try to get a better understanding of a wide variety of issues, and it seems more and more I am finding a lot of interest in the whole area of justice. I think I can attribute that to the dialogue and the correspondence that I have been receiving from constituents. It seems more and more that it is an issue that people want to talk about.

It really stirred me when, during the by-election out in Portage la Prairie, I met a senior lady. I was knocking on the door, and I was just about to walk away when the door just kind of opened up a little bit, by a crack, and this lady saw me. I introduced myself to her through the crack, and then she had opened up the door and asked me to come inside. It was amazing how she had that door so secured and other things that one would classify as safety measures were being taken for her home. I sat down on the couch, and then she went into this horrific story of what took place just two weeks prior, how her home was invaded.

Mr. Chairperson, the bottom line, because I do not need to go into every detail of it, was that this lady now sleeps during the day because she has a very difficult time sleeping at night as a result of her home invasion. Shortly after that, I tried to get a better assessment in terms of what actually happens to individuals that break into homes. I came to the conclusion that for me, personally, and I believe what a vast majority of Manitobans believe, that a home break-in is a basic violation of a person's right to feel safe in their own home, and every break-in has the potential to be a home invasion because the thief, if you like, has no idea whether or not someone is in fact at home.

I see this senior lady and say to myself that this could have happened to anyone, whether it was one of my parents or anywhere else, and a home invasion knows no necessary age. There are young individuals that are caught in these compromised positions and so forth. What I tried to do was to get a better understanding of what sort of consequence was there for those individuals, and that is really where it started to get somewhat frustrating. As I tried to get some specific numbers, I could not get that. As an elected official, I would have liked to have seen some more hard numbers as to what actually happens to individuals that get caught breaking into homes. In fact, I had some discussions with individuals from different departments along with the Courts office, and one of the common theme seemed to be one of the lack of computerization and statistical information that, I think, would definitively have been most valuable in having.

Some of the questions, for example, would have been issues of how many individuals have been prosecuted for home break-ins. Do we have any idea of the numbers of individuals that were prosecuted successfully for home break-ins? I know there is an annual police report, and it does give some numbers of individuals that were charged. So would it not be nice to have an idea how many people were charged, how many people were successful in terms of those charges turning into a sentence at the court level? Most importantly for me, I was interested in what type of a disposition these offenders were being given. I did not know that I was going to be asking the questions today.

I was not too sure when the department was going to be passing, so the minister has to excuse me for not having some of the stats that I could have had that were provided, but there is a lot of questions that needed to be answered from that. From what I could tell a break-in, for example, for someone that is a repeat offender, they are probably looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of an aggregate total of nine months of a jail sentence as an average. That was somewhat speculative. When you go and you knock on a door and someone says, well, geez, you know, my house was broken into, I had to wait this many hours in order for someone to come on the scene to check out the situation--and then they have absolutely no follow-up. They have no idea whether or not someone was eventually charged with the crime, nor do they have any sort of an idea of what is the likely penalty for someone breaking into a home.

As I have indicated, I take this as a very serious crime, and what I was hoping is that I might be able to get some specific information from the minister, or whatever information that he might have available. Specifically, is the department aware of the number of individuals that are charged in any given year with break and entry? Residential break-ins, I am not necessarily as concerned about commercial as residential break-ins. Is the minister aware of how many go through the courts, whether it is successful prosecution? Maybe I can leave those two questions and no doubt those will lead to others.

* (1540)

Mr. Chairperson: Before the honourable minister responds to the question, I noticed that the committee has--we are on line 4.1.(b) of the Justice Estimates, and we have reverted back from Prosecutions. I noticed in the honourable member's comments to the minister in posing his question that there were references made to other areas.

So just to facilitate that we are staying in line with what we are doing here, the process of dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice, I would ask the committee if there is unanimous consent to consider the entire Estimates of the department at this point in time, so that questions can flow freely without worrying about the areas in terms of the line by line that we are dealing with? Is there unanimous consent of the committee to deal with the department of Estimates in its entirety? [agreed]

Mr. Toews: Yes, I in fact, I think I had indicated as much to the member that I was prepared to entertain questions. I know that he was caught on short notice with the proceedings here, and I wanted to ensure that he has an opportunity to answer the question. Similarly, I may not be able to respond perhaps as fully as I would have liked to, but I can through my staff, over the next little while, try to get some of the other information that I might not be able to provide him with immediately.

The member began his question with the by-election in Portage la Prairie. I too had occasion to be there for one reason or another during that time. One of the things that we have to understand about criminal justice and the enforcement of criminal justice policy is that in many ways communities can add so much in order to be effective. Portage la Prairie is truly blessed with a city council who is very concerned about this issue and deals with it in a very proactive way. I can speak about the mayor and I can speak about Mr. Dave Quinn who is a member of my department who, in fact, ran for the Liberals during that same by-election. They have come up with very unique, innovative programs, victims programming, where Portage la Prairie was part of a pilot project of seven communities right across Manitoba for the delivery of victims assistance program through the RCMP. Again, Mayor Carlson very instrumental in moving that along. They have unique community-based offices where all volunteer organizations get together to centrally deliver many of their crime prevention policies.

Indeed, there has been some controversy in the last little while about what Portage la Prairie council has done in respect of a curfew that they have enacted. You know, there might be many opinions on whether or not the curfew is a good thing to do. I certainly understand from some of the newspaper reports that we have seen a reduction in vandalism, in petty crimes and perhaps even other crimes. We will have to see what the statistics bear out by the end of the year, but again, that was an initiative by city council to address a particular problem.

So one of the things that we have to remember in all of these circumstances, no matter what laws the federal government passes or what laws the provincial government administers on behalf of that criminal justice system, an important component is the community, and city council in Portage la Prairie has been instrumental in mobilizing community members to work on the issue of crime. They should be very highly commended for what they have done over the past little while.

So in respect of the particular issue that the member raised with me, the conversation that he had with this poor, unfortunate woman who had been, I understand from the member, a victim of a break and enter or a home invasion, well, that is certainly a very, very big concern of this department. Our department, almost from the beginning of the commencement of these kinds of actions, has taken a very vigorous and I believe effective mechanism in terms of the prosecutions. One of the first sentences that was handed out at the Queen's Bench level for home invasion here in Manitoba was 14 years. That was reduced, on appeal, by the Manitoba Court of Appeal to 10 years, and subsequently another decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal at 10 years. So it seems to be a benchmark that home invasions, according to the Court of Appeal, are worth at least 10 years. This is even in situations where there has not been particularly a great amount of physical injury to the person but that this sentence has been imposed because the community is horrified that these kinds of things would happen. I certainly support that vigorous prosecution of those matters.

The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is absolutely correct that break and enters are very, very different from almost any other crime. I do not consider break and enters into residential homes to be a property offence. They are not property offences. It is not the same thing as having your car vandalized. It is not the same thing as having someone break into a commercial premises at night when there is virtually no potential of someone being there. The real danger of a residential break and enter is exactly what the member pointed out. The potential for confrontation with an occupant of the house is always there, and therefore the potential for personal injury is always there.

So these cases, and we have seen it in the past, what one can call a simple break and enter--and by using that term I do not mean to in any way belittle or downgrade my concern--but a straightforward break and enter can result in fact in a murder. We have had very recently situations where people have broken into a house not knowing somebody was there, and suddenly the residents are confronted. The potential, especially among young offenders, for that situation to get out of hand and serious physical injury occur, cannot be underestimated. So break and enters, I agree with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), are not property offences. They are something much, much more significant and serious. So the issue of home invasions, which our department has specifically targeted as warranting heavier sentences, is in fact something that we will continue on.

I do not consider break and enters to be a matter of the luck of the draw. That is not what we, as law enforcement officials, should consider a break and enter. This is an exceptional situation that needs very strong direction from both me, as the Minister of Justice, and other aspects of the justice system. Again, that issue is also tied up in our policy with regard to bail and the opposition of bail of serious and violent offenders or gang members. So we try to be reasonable in the sense that we want to work within the law, but let us look at what the law provides for a residential break and enter.

* (1550)

What is the maximum sentence authorized for a residential break and enter? I think Parliament early on recognized how different a residential break and enter was. It is not simply an issue of a man's castle, as the old expression is, or a person's castle, I guess, as we would say now. It deals with an issue of personal integrity, of personal safety, and so is much more a matter than just a piece of property.

So what does Parliament say in respect of residential break and enters? The maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The issue there is not: do we amend the criminal code to get harsher sentences? Because there is only one alternative to life imprisonment.

An Honourable Member: Death.

Mr. Toews: The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) indicates death. I do not think he is advocating that there be executions for residential break and enters, but the point that the member raises has, in fact, received the consideration of Parliament, and Parliament said that there is a potential here of life imprisonment.

You know, the issue then of what are appropriate sentences for break and enters is, I think, a very important one. The member has raised this with me before, and I have raised this with my department very specifically as a consequence not just of the home invasion sentences, but in fact as a result of the member's questions.

What are we doing in that area? Can we determine with any certainty what the sentences are? In my opinion, we need to do a little more work in that area to ensure that the political and legislative message of Parliament is respected, because they are sending us a message saying that this is what the people of Canada want.

So how do we communicate that message to all aspects of the justice system to ensure that they realize how significant this is? I am not targeting one aspect of the justice system. I am talking about the justice system generally, including members of my department.

How do we do that? I think in the area of home invasions we have done that, but home invasions are simply, perhaps, on one part of the scale of break and enters because, essentially, that is what they are. They are break and enters.

So the member's concerns about numbers and who is doing it, we know, for example, that many of these home invasions are done by very few members of our society, very few. That is why I think it is very important in any specific case in home invasions to be as vigilant as we can in the area of prosecution, but that does not excuse us in the area of break and enters generally because of the potential of the danger that can arise from confrontation of residents in their own homes.

So I do not have those statistics available with me at this time, but whatever statistics I can share with the member, I will take a look for those statistics.

There was one other issue that the member has raised, and that was the issue of technology and computerization. I think that is a very good point. Our Department of Justice has, in fact, been addressing that particular issue.

We have a system that is being implemented now as we speak and over the past number of months called the Prosecutions Information Scheduling and Management System, or PRISM is the acronym. Prosecutions is currently undergoing a reorganization that will see a shift of resources from the trial component of prosecutions to the intake component. What this does is that these efficiencies that will result as a result of concentrating more on the intake will allow us to focus more resources on matters that actually go to trial, proceed to trial.

The key component of the reorganization is the development of this PRISM system to ensure that adequate resources are placed at the appropriate pressure points, that the system can respond to a changing environment as those changes occur, so that staff are deployed in the most efficient and effective way and that the needs of victims and witnesses are addressed in a timely manner.

For example, the woman that the member referred to in Portage la Prairie, I hope that he gave her some direction in terms of assistance, perhaps, that she could find, because in Portage la Prairie, as I indicated, they have one of the most sophisticated Victim Assistance programs in Manitoba. So there is help, and if the member--I can appreciate the member does not want to give names like that, but certainly if he wants to share that information directly with that particular constituent from Portage la Prairie, give that information to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) or, indeed, give it to the police or to members of my department, I would certainly try to ensure that those concerns of that woman are met.

But all of this, the core case management, the case scheduling, the financial management, the statistical reporting, all is predicated on an upgrade of technology that we will be seeing implemented over the next little while. The first module will be implemented early next year, and as one can appreciate, there is a lot of work that goes into developing an appropriate, technologically efficient system.

What the prison plan includes is a requirement to provide a work station to all Crown attorneys and support staff within Prosecutions. This includes personal computers, and I have the numbers but I do not necessarily want to provide them at this time, but it includes personal computer work stations. The funds have been approved by government, and so we are moving in that direction.

So the point, both that the member raises in respect of break and enters generally, the management of that issue, and technology is something that my staff is very mindful of and we will continue to work on.

Mr. Lamoureux: I think that there is the potential for the computerization or PRISM--it is the acronym--that the minister makes reference to. I think that there could be many benefits derived from that. What I want to emphasize is that the stats I have been looking for, it has been frustrating because I have not been able to acquire them. I had the annual police report--now, this would have been the '95 statistical report, and I bring it up as an example, crimes against property. There were 2,445 reported, 242 were cleared, and I have not been able to find out for that same fiscal year, if you like, how many of those break and enters actually were successful in court, and, in particular, what sort of a disposition were we looking at.

It pleases me to hear that a home invasion--the message that the province seems to be sending out is that you are looking at--if you break into someone's home and there is someone there, you are looking at a good 10 years of incarceration. That is likely an aggregate total, so it might not necessarily work out to 10 years, but at least you have something that is somewhat tangible that you can talk to your constituents about, because I think there is a wide gap of what people really believe is happening to the criminal after that criminal gets caught.

* (1600)

The minister made reference to the criminal law, criminal law being maximum, of life. So if you break into someone's house, the courts have the opportunity, if they so choose, to send that person away for life. One of the questions that I put out in my most recent survey was asking if there should be some form of a minimum sentence for someone that is caught breaking into a home, and the overwhelming response to that has been, yes, that there should be some form of a minimum sentence to it.

The actual percentage--I have about 400 so far returned to me. I will be sure that the

minister will get the actual percentage. I also left a little line in terms of what they would suggest in numbers of months would be an appropriate minimum. Again, this is just someone that could be, you know, a 19-year-old who breaks into someone's home, takes just the TV and walks out. I was referring to a minimum incarceration period, and it will be interesting to get the results, and I will be sure to give the minister a copy of that when I do get them finalized. That will likely happen sometime in the next six weeks.

But to the minister, what I would like to see is the specific number. If John Doe breaks in and John Doe is 20 years old, breaks into the house, it is the very first time he has broken into a house and he gets caught, he goes through the court, what is John Doe looking at? The impression that the public, I believe, have--and my impression is not too far off from it; I must admit that--is it might be probation, and if there is any incarceration period of time, that they would be surprised, and, quite frankly, I would likely be surprised. That is why I think that if in fact there is an incarceration period that we have got to be able to communicate that, because you feed the belief that wrists or hands are being slapped when serious crimes are occurring.

What I believe has happened over the years, and I have made reference to this in the past, is that respecting judicial independence does not necessarily justify a politician from taking any responsibility to ensuring that there is some form of accountability within our judicial system.

Now, the minister could be in the hot seat by my making that statement and asking him to respond to it, but I really do believe as a result of that judicial independence that there has been a general lack of public confidence in the judicial system. Maybe it is because of the media, maybe it is because the communication has not been successful in what has actually been happening within the courts, but I believe I would be doing a disservice to my constituents if I did not raise that particular concern, because no one else is doing it. When I say no one else, I do not mean to say that I am the only member of the Legislative Assembly. I think we all try to do it in our own ways.

Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

What I see has happened is that there has been a growing gap between what people believe is appropriate and what is actually happening. In other words, the will of the public and the feelings and the emotions and what they believe is right and just are not necessarily being reflected in our courts. If in fact it is being reflected in our courts, then we are doing a very poor job at demonstrating that, because I believe that there is a good percentage of the population, I would hazard a guess well over 50 percent of the population--if I was to really speculate, I would suggest it is probably as high as 85-90 percent--where they do not have the type of confidence in our judicial system which I believe should be there.

That is the reason why inside the Chamber I brought forward a resolution with the idea of an all-party task force. Given what has happened recently or since I introduced that particular resolution, I believe that there was more merit to seeing some sort of an independent review of our judicial system that goes beyond our courts, that goes beyond, if you like, our judges or our Crowns, the defence lawyers, the stakeholders, that we have to get some sort of a review in process so we can start narrowing that gap so that the public can feel that the justice system is there to serve them.

Do you know, it would be interesting to get from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) how many people might have approached him where they said, well, it seems that the criminal has more rights and more advantages than the victim. I know that is something that constantly comes up with respect to me. I like to think that I am very liberally minded in my thoughts with respect to the justice system, that I am not a hard right, you know, throw the person into jail until they die. I would like to believe that is not my attitude towards justice, but I think the pendulum has gone too far in the other direction, and I think that now is the time in which we start taking some sort of action to ensure that there is more accountability where there has not been any accountability for far too long.

I use the example of break and enters primarily because of the frustration, and it would be interesting to find the answers to the question which I put to the minister. I hope to get that, because I think that is absolutely essential. If I am wrong--and I hope I am wrong. I hope that the types of information that can be provided to me demonstrate that my constituents would be content with the types of dispositions that are being handed out through our judicial system.

I would be surprised, and I would be the first to apologize to those stakeholders that feel offended if in fact that were the case, but I have done what I can to try to get some sort of statistical information, given the limited resources that I have. Where I believe it is important, because the minister made reference to community groups, I could not agree with the minister more. I think the more we get the communities involved, the better we are going to be.

On a bit of a side note, if I may, I do not want to--well, maybe I will go out to that side note after I give the minister a chance to respond to this.

Mr. Toews: The member raises a number of issues that have been currently discussed in public and other areas, and I appreciate the frankness of the member and I think his genuine good faith in raising these issues. We were elected to serve our constituents to raise these types of concerns, and I believe each of us, no matter what political party we are from, are doing it in good faith, because these are the things we are hearing from our constituents. So I am very pleased that I am not the only member who has been hearing concerns raised by his constituents. So the fact that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and others have the same concerns as a result of conversations that they have had with their constituents, at least makes me feel that I am somehow living in a isolated area. I think the concerns raised are legitimate concerns that our constituents elect us to discuss.

One of the further responsibilities of the Attorney General, one that has been clearly recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, is that in the capacity of Attorney General, yes, we are respectful of the courts; yes, we are respectful of the other aspects of the justice system, but we are obligated to express our concerns in appropriate ways so that these issues are discussed and legislatively acted upon.

* (1610)

So, I sat here and I listened to the member, and I say I am glad that he is bringing forward his constituents' concern in such a frank and genuine way because I think given his understanding, and the fact he has communicated that to me, allows me to proceed in certain directions which I think we need, not because we are in the business of knocking over sacred cows. We are in the business of ensuring that government serves the interests of people, all aspects of government. So the comments from the member are certainly worthy of discussion and consideration. We may not always agree on solutions, but the ideas raised are certainly worthy of discussion. That is why we are elected. That is why we are here.

In respect of some of the specific issues raised by the member is the issue of break and enters and what are the statistics. Well, I know that I have received statistics from somewhere and I am trying to track them down. But I know that over the past five years, for example, break and enters--and I believe it is residential break and enters--in Winnipeg have decreased by about 26 percent, so we are seeing a reduction in the number of break and enters. There is no question about that. Is that satisfactory? I do not think it is good enough.

There are a number of initiatives that we can still utilize in order to bring that rate down. I had occasion to speak to members of the community all over Manitoba. Through various community organizations like the Cottage Watch Program, and in certain areas I believe it was--well, maybe I will not say the area because I will be proven wrong tomorrow when a break and enter occurs--but in a cottage area here in Manitoba, the last year the break and enter rate went to zero because of the activities of a community organization working together with the police. So there are steps that we can take separate and apart from any steps that the courts or the Department of Justice could take. We have to remember that.

In respect of the actual management of cases and determination who is getting what for what kind of crime, that is part of the entire PRISM system. We will be able to provide those kinds of statistics and, I think, hold the Justice department accountable to looking at our statistics and saying what are you doing; why are things not going better?

So technology in some sense puts the department under a greater magnifying glass. I appreciate some of the concerns that members of my department have expressed about the continuing scrutiny of people in the justice system, but that is part, I think, of our responsibilities being where we are, that we should not try to hide what we are doing. We should be prepared to justify what we are doing. In fact, I think by and large we are doing a good job and certainly the prosecutors in this area are doing a good job. We can improve, and I think there are ways that I as the Justice minister can help our Crowns in doing a better job.

I wanted to specifically point out to the member, I do have some statistics that are available in the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics that was published in 1996. I think that is the most recent edition. I do not believe we have any statistics more recent than that. But at page 27, at figure 2.16, they list breaking and entering incidents by province or territory, 1996. What they indicate is that the two jurisdictions--and this is done on a per 100,000 population rate--that have the highest break and enter rate are the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Sometimes statistics can be misleading in areas where there are small population bases, so we have to be mindful of that. I think there are better statistics that we can rely upon.

The next highest are British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They have the next-highest rate. British Columbia is over 2,000 break and enters per 100,000 population. Next is Saskatchewan at, I would say, about 1,800 break and enters per 100,000 of population.

Next comes Manitoba and Quebec, which are basically tied at about, I would say, 1,400, which is just slightly above the national average. So Manitoba--I am not bragging because it is not good to be at the national average in this kind of a thing--but we are certainly nowhere near the British Columbia and Saskatchewan situation which are far more serious.

After that, in descending order after the Canada national average, we see Alberta at, I would say, about 1,150; Ontario at about 1,100 or 1,050; Nova Scotia at about 1,000; and then the other Maritime provinces under 1,000, with Newfoundland being the lowest at about 700.

That is an interesting comment, because it is not necessarily the wealthiest provinces that have the lowest break and enter rates. Indeed, one could say that Newfoundland would be perhaps, in terms of taxing abilities and some of the programming, one of the poorest provinces in Canada. Yet they have the lowest rate of break and enter. What does that tell us? I think it speaks a lot to social conditions and issues of that nature. So I do not think that we can take any comfort in where we are. I think we can do better.

* (1620)

The study indicates that rates have remained stable in Manitoba and in Alberta and increased in the remaining provinces. P.E.I. reduced by 1.5 percent and Ontario by 3.6 percent, so the increases were in the remaining provinces. So British Columbia and Saskatchewan increased. Alberta increased and then some of the other ones. The only ones to show a decrease in fact were Ontario and P.E.I. The others increased, with Manitoba and Alberta remaining stable. Again, nothing to be proud of, but it shows that some of our policies are in fact being effective. I want to say that one of the policies is the policy of targeting home invasions. I think that is a very important aspect in reducing break and enters.

Now the member, before he speaks too loudly to his constituents about, if you do a break and enter, you are going to get 10 years, that is not the case. I know that not to be the case. I think when we talk about home invasions, we are talking about people specifically entering into a residential home where they know somebody is at home. So it is a very, very different kind of offence in respect of the intent. The result of a home invasion can be exactly the same as a break and enter, even where there is no such intent.

But I want to say that Manitoba recognized that particular problem early on. In 1997, at the Uniform Law Conference, Manitoba proposed the creation of a new offence, and that was the offence of home invasion. We suggested that this new offence be punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment--again, the same as break and enter--but it would be specifically used in order to bring home to the courts--and I make no apologies about legislators sending messages to the courts because that is the function of passing laws. Indeed, when I read the Chief Justice's recent report about the Queen's Bench, he, in fact, said as much. He said: Don't blame the courts; blame the legislators for not passing tougher laws.

An Honourable Member: I read the article, too.

Mr. Toews: The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) indicates he read the article. I not only read the article, I read the report. In the case of break and enters, what further message could the legislators send? I think the member for Inkster touched upon the issue, and I will get back to that because the member has been raising some very, very good points here.

Now we suggested that there be, in fact, that kind of an offence of home invasion which would bring home to the courts the condemnation that the public has for those who break into residences and physically harm the occupants. Although, the above-noted resolution that I have just mentioned was defeated at the Uniform Law Conference, Manitoba and its prosecutors will be continuing to stress the importance of this particular issue and look for strong sentences in terms of substantial periods of imprisonment.

So we have already suggested the issue of a separate offence, and we have specifically targeted home invasions. I think some of our other policies such as the COP Program, Citizens On Patrol and Cottage Watch and others have allowed the break and enter rate to not only stabilize but decrease in many of our communities, and we need to continue working with community groups like that.

The issue, though, of sentencing is a very important one, and the member raises the issue of minimum sentences. I am a firm believer in minimum sentences. I think there is great, social good in minimum sentences for establishing uniformity in the application of the law so that there are not these discrepancies. If one looks at the success of minimum sentences since the advent of the Charter of Rights, we have seen something that is of concern to legislators, or should be of concern to legislators. Even in situations where minimum sentences of seven days had been imposed for driving suspended, courts struck down those types of minimum sentences and other minimum sentences.

Perhaps the most important minimum sentence to be struck down was the importation of narcotics into Canada. It used to be that you imported narcotics into Canada, there was a minimum sentence of seven years. The court struck that down as being unconstitutional, as cruel and unusual punishment. And so I think Parliament has been spooked, to a great extent, by some of these cases and may not feel that they have the firm constitutional basis that they need to proceed in that direction.

I think that we should revisit that whole area as legislators and parliamentarians, and we need to encourage people like the Justice minister who, I think, has some very good ideas but needs, I think, some more encouragement from her provincial counterparts to keep on moving in a certain direction. The issue of minimum sentences, I think, is an idea that needs to be discussed. If what the Chief Justice said is right that they welcome direction from Parliament in respect of, and I believe the words were his, "tougher sentences," well, in the area of break and enter, as I have said and the member noted, we cannot get any tougher other than announcing that we are going to, through legislation, execute people. Now, I do not think the people of Canada are prepared for that.

One of the members of my staff once pointed out to me in saying in a minimum sentence, there should be two questions in a survey: What would be the minimum sentence for a person who broke into your home and walked off with your television set? If that person had no prior record, what should the minimum sentence be? And what should be the minimum sentence if a person broke into a home and took the television set and walked out if that person was your son or daughter?

I think Canadians recognize that any measures in terms of minimum sentences also have to reflect other values, not purely punitive. I think in the area of home invasion, any other considerations other than punitive are very, very small, but in some of the other areas, I think we need to reconsider this. We know that there have been minimum sentences in the area of firearms and the use of firearms. We know that, for example, using a firearm in the context of another offence is punishable by an extra four years. We, in fact, have been very supportive of it, and the courts so far have been supportive of it.

One of the positions that we say in respect of Bill C-68 is not that we are against holding people accountable for their use of firearms. We are very much in favour of that. We are simply not in favour of setting up a system that, in our opinion, will be a huge drain on our police and other resources without any effective or consequential benefits in terms of reducing crime in our neighbourhoods and in our communities.

* (1630)

So the issue of minimum sentences is a very important topic. I believe it is a topic that the federal government should continue to address. In the area of break and enters, I think the member is right. It used to be that there used to be, I think, a minimum sentence in break and enters. I recall a situation where I prosecuted a break and enter into a post office. For me, I thought it was a serious crime. The person backed up a truck--it was a post office in Shilo--and loaded up his truck, had a load full and then came back for another load full. The person was caught, and we asked for a substantive period of jail because the guy was a youthful offender. He was an adult, but he was a young offender. So my position was, well, it is not a residential break and enter. It is a post office, and as serious an offence as interfering with the mail is, I did not think that a penitentiary was where the person should be. Well, the county court judge, who is since deceased, imposed a suspended sentence. I thought that was inappropriate. I referred that to Prosecutions here in Winnipeg and they appealed it. It went to Court of Appeal. Court of Appeal said that that kind of offence warranted penitentiary. The only reason they were not going to send that young man to penitentiary was because the prosecutor had only asked for jail time, and so they sentenced him to two years less a day.

Now, it turned out that the offender was also convicted of other offences unrelated that were consecutive time, and so he went to penitentiary anyway. That is now 20 years ago that particular case took place, but that is the way the court then viewed a break and enter into a post office where the person was, to some extent, inebriated and driving this motor vehicle, but there was never an issue of personal safety and somebody hurt as a result of that.

In the area of residential break and enters, we used to see a fairly standard application of sentences in residential break and enters, for one reason or another. I think part of it is because break and enters are viewed as property offences and we do not send people to jail any more for property offences. Well, I think the message that needs to go out and that we are sending through our policy on home invasions and others is that break and enters are not property offences. They are very, very dangerous crimes that can lead to very serious personal consequences for victims, and secondly, it is not just an issue of the theft of property but the personal well-being of individuals such as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) mentioned that he met when he was knocking doors during the Portage by-election.

I say all these things, of course, with all due respect to judicial independence. I do it in the hope that we stimulate discussion here to in fact determine a position that we can send off to the federal government, because they are the ones who control what kind of legislation is passed. So the comments we make here--and I find the member's statements especially instructive, given that he is from an opposition party and a so-called Liberal. It is instructive that those kinds of comments would be coming from a Liberal. So I certainly intend to send some of those comments on to my federal colleagues in Ottawa to let them know what Liberals are thinking here in Manitoba, because I do not think that they are far off from what my thinking is and indeed the vast majority of Manitobans.

The last point that was raised by the member is the issue of a justice review, and I do want to get into that very, very quickly because it is an important one. But I want to also point out that, to members of the public who think that Manitoba's incarceration rates are low, I might indicate that there are only two provinces who have higher incarceration rates. Number one is Saskatchewan, and No. 2 is Alberta.

An Honourable Member: And that is a good thing?

Mr. Toews: So Manitoba is No. 3. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) says: is that a good thing or not? I am not saying it is good or bad. I am simply saying that our incarceration rates and lengths of sentences are among the highest in Canada. Now, members of the public or certainly my constituents would say to me: do we in fact take any pride from the fact that everyone else might be doing a worse job than we are? So we need to balance policy issues and matters of personal safety and rehabilitation and all those factors. I think we can do a better job as a criminal justice system of focusing in on certain types of crimes that we find simply reprehensible.

I do not think the member for The Maples or the member for Inkster have any problem with diverting certain types of offences, because the diversion programs that we have used in this province relating to youth justice committees, who hear over 2,000 cases a year here in Manitoba--I believe that was the last figure for last year. The recidivism rate is very, very low. I hear that it is about 3 percent--the recidivism rate of people who go through youth justice committees. To me, it is not an issue of being tough; it is an issue of being effective. We have found an effective means of dealing with certain offenders. This sort of harks back to the comments that the member for The Maples was making.

I just want to put that into a context. We need to find effective dispositions for certain types of offenders. In my opinion, when we are talking about home invasions or break and enters, the effective disposition is a period of incarceration. Certainly home invasions, 10 years is not too light a sentence. I note that one Court of Queen's Bench Judge imposed 14 years, but that was reduced by the Court of Appeal to 10 years. So 10 years seems to be the standard.

I do not think I will have the time to get into the issue unless the member wants to ask another question about the review of the justice system, because that is an important one. I would be prepared to answer that if the member was, and I would be brief. I realize that I have gone on for some time, but I think in fairness to me, the member asked about three or four questions that I have been trying to address.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I have no problem with the length of answers from the minister as long as he does not have any problem with my diatribe of questions.

I agree that when I look at crimes, there are some crimes that I think that there is more of a need to put emphasis on than other crimes. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I have had discussions in the past of starting to get tough on the causes of crime and do more in that area, and I try to be as sensitive as much as possible to those alternatives. Having said that, I do think that there are different areas in which the public expectations are very high, and I think that they are being let down.

The minister was going to comment on the need for some sort of an independent review. I am very much interested in his thoughts on that. But prior to his commenting on that, if he could, I understood exactly what he meant when he first answered the question about the 10 years for a home invasion. That I think seems, at least would appear to be somewhat reasonable.

The real question on the home break-ins is: is there any sort of or does the minister or the department have any idea--the example I used earlier is, John on a Sunday afternoon breaks into so-and-so's house, gets caught, what is going to happen to John? What would likely happen to John if he gets caught doing it, nothing more than just smashing a window, walking into the house, grabs the TV, puts it into a waiting vehicle. On the way back to the house to grab some more, he sees a car pull up into the driveway and then just takes off, gets caught. What is likely going to happen to John?

If the minister could answer that particular question, it would be appreciated, and then the more specific the detailed answers at some point in time if he could get back to me on that, that would be great.

Now to comment on the independent review. I, as I say, earlier or late last year was of the opinion that we needed to see some sort of an all-party task force, and that is something which the Liberal Party was in favour of seeing. Today, I look at it as trying to see it more independent of the political parties that would respond to filling that gap between the public and the courts and, to a certain degree, the elected politicians.

* (1640)

What I somewhat envision seeing would be representatives from the different stakeholders, whether one has to go outside of province or not, but you are looking at everything from the judges to Crowns, the police, defence lawyer, and, most importantly, I believe, some lay people, individuals who are familiar with the process, with the idea of having some sort of public input and then coming back with some sort of recommendations, whether those recommendations go direct to our judicial system, or, I should say, they should go both to our judges and to the minister or the government of the day. I really believe that in the long term it is in our best interest.

When I posed the question in Question Period, the one day the minister responded that Alberta was having some sort of a task force that was ongoing currently, and I think that is good for the province of Alberta. We do not know in terms of when it is that they will come back, when the report would actually be released or anything of that nature. I think that there is merit for Manitoba to be doing something, at least start the ball rolling, and that might mean having just a formal discussion group. If you are talking about individuals who reside in the province of Manitoba, I would think that you would be looking at individuals who are, if not semiretired, are retired from different positions that reflect the stakeholders and, as I say, some individuals representing the public as a whole.

So I would be interested in just hearing the minister's comments on those two points.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The Chair has received a request from the honourable minister for a five-minute recess. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee members that this Committee of Supply recess for five minutes? [agreed]

This section of the Committee of Supply will resume sitting after a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed at 4:43 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:51 p.m.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): This section of the Committee of Supply will resume with the honourable minister responding to questions from the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for that question. I want to indicate that one of the primary considerations of all Justice ministers in Canada at our last conference was the issue of public confidence in the justice system, and I think that is what the member is referring to, generally speaking, because I do not think he simply wants a review for the sake of a review. I think he is saying to me--and I do not want to put any words in his mouth, but I think what he is telling me is that members of his constituency are not as confident in the justice system, and I use that word very generally and broadly and loosely, and I am not targeting any specific aspect of the justice system, but there is an erosion of the confidence in that justice system.

So what, in fact, occurred as a result of that conference in December of last year--and I might say that there were very, very different points of view on that issue. One of them--and I do not attribute any fault personally to the federal Minister of Justice because I think that in many ways she is heading in the right direction; in others, she could be more forceful. But one of the things, and I have said this before in public, is that we were treated to a presentation by the federal Justice officials of what the real issue was in respect of the erosion of public confidence in the justice system.

They put on all kinds of slides and statistics and polls and said that because crime was dropping in Canada, the problem was not the justice system, it was people's perception with the justice system, and what we needed was some kind of a massive education program to re-educate the Canadian voter. That was not as directly said, but that was certainly the response that I took away from the meeting. I do not think that was necessarily the federal Justice minister's position, but it appeared to be the position of some of her staff. I think most Justice ministers treated to that presentation took some degree of insult from it, because we are hearing from our constituents that it is not a matter of their education; it is a matter of us dealing with what they consider fundamental problems, and I agree with my constituents.

What happened as a result of that conference was that a working group of deputy ministers was put together in terms of dealing with that specific issue. We were unable to, I think, approach the topic in the detail that we thought it should be, and so we delegated it to our deputy ministers, not with a view to putting the responsibility on them but rather to come up with a working solution. Of course, Manitoba is one of the working group members. It includes British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Canada and Manitoba.

One of the deputy ministers, in particular the deputy minister from the Yukon, has recently sent out some correspondence on this particular issue. Now, this deputy minister is well known here in the Province of Manitoba. He was, of course, a former assistant deputy minister here, Mr. Stuart Whitley, who, in fact, was my boss in Constitutional Law before he moved on to become the director of Prosecutions and then to become the assistant deputy minister of Prosecutions, and he, as I think others, feels very strongly about this issue.

I want to say that the minister from the Yukon is one who feels very, very strongly about this issue, Lois Moorcroft. She is not a lawyer and sometimes I think because of that brings a breath of fresh air into a closed room, because in many respects people consider lawyers as operating in closed rooms. I do not necessarily agree with that proposition in every case, but I think it is very important, and it gets back to the member's point about being inclusive when we look at reviewing the system, because you cannot change the system by having the same old people there talking about the system.

You know, we did a review of the Small Claims Court, for example--which again, a very important aspect of the justice system, very important aspect-- and some of the recommendations, and indeed the majority of the recommendations this government has indicated we are very supportive of. But one of the recommendations that was made was that essentially we get rid of hearing officers who are not legally trained lawyers. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that simply legal training guarantees a good disposition or a good temperament towards decision making of that type, especially in Small Claims Court.

We have got clerks and other people in our justice system who have seen and observed the system for many, many years. They may not have a law degree, but they have a wealth of experience that enables them to make very important decisions about people's lives in the small claims context. But it was not surprising that the recommendation coming from a group of lawyers and judges would make that kind of recommendation that they should all be lawyers with at least five years of experience. I think that before we take those kinds of steps, let us make sure that the system stays in touch with the ordinary person.

One of the points again that I think the member raised is that the court system is a very formal process, and sometimes a law degree and a call to the bar gives us the key to access that legal system, forgetting that the system was not created for lawyers. It was created in order for people to resolve their differences in a positive way. So I think that the importance of having laypeople, that is, nonlawyers, participating in these kinds of decision-making process including reviews of our legal system is an element that is not simply a courtesy to the public but indeed is an essential element of any review. So I think I would like my position very clearly made in that respect.

* (1700)

One of the things that has been proposed in respect of this working group on public confidence in the justice system is a call to answer certain questions. I do not think I am telling any tales out of school here because the circulation of this document was quite widespread, but some of the things that Mr. Whitley suggested are things--I mean, central questions like why there are problems in public confidence, and I note that he did not say are there problems in public confidence. I think we recognize why there are problems in public confidence is the question, rather than are there. I think we have gone one step beyond asking are there problems. We know that there are issues. He asks again: what are the critical real issues to be addressed? Another question: what are the linkages with work being done on integrated justice initiatives? We cannot look at the court system as being separate and apart from other kinds of community initiatives, such as youth justice committees or healing circles or alternative resolution of disputes. What kinds of things can be done to improve public confidence? So this is clearly something that the working group is looking at.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

I do not think--and I certainly as minister do not think--that a group of deputy ministers is going to provide us with the substantive answers. I think a group of deputy ministers might be able to identify a process that stretches beyond any particular jurisdiction, and that is, in my opinion, what I am looking primarily for from this group of deputy ministers. What is the process? How do we address these problems? What Mr. Whitley has suggested, and I certainly support, is that there be a ministers' meeting following the Calgary summit on justice initiatives in February of 1999. I want to be there, not just at the summit but to meet with the other ministers afterwards because I think that will be an excellent way of integrating a justice ministers' conference with input from the community as to what the issues are. So the member indicated, well, it is all well and good for Alberta to do this. I see this as a much bigger thing than simply Alberta. It is also all Justice ministers that I would like to see participate in that, and then we can bring home ideas or indeed specific calls.

Now, I think it is important for the member to know what the format is in Alberta, and why I put a great deal of faith into that process. I might say that the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, of Alberta has not been immune from some degree of controversy in statements that he has made. I believe that all the statements that he has made were made in good faith, with a genuine interest in representing his constituents and also in fulfilling his constitutional role recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as expressing the concerns of the citizens. That is a role of the Attorney General as well, in respect of the justice system.

In a case that my deputy pointed out to me, I believe it was the Power case in 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada specifically acknowledged the role of the Attorney General in making public statements about public concerns. That is not an issue of interference with judicial independence. An independent organization or operation can only continue to be relevant provided that it receives input, input in an appropriate way but input nevertheless. Again, you cannot reform a system or change a system when a system needs changed by simply relying on the people who are part of that closed room. [interjection] That is right. So I think I agree with the member--I am getting back to that point again. I agree with the member that it must be more inclusive than perhaps matters have been in the past.

Again, the point that I mention about the review of our civil justice system and the recommendation that we only appoint lawyers to hear cases, again sometimes I have concern that traditional elements of our legal system forget or sometimes have not heard the other voices that require, I think, more careful thought of where that kind of recommendation leads us to--and again, no reflection on the legal community, no reflection on judges in terms of negative. It is simply that our systems need to be responsive to public concerns. That is why these institutions were made in the beginning.

Now, what they did in Alberta is put out a press release. Justice Minister Havelock in this press release announces that an Alberta justice summit to restore public confidence in the legal system was announced today. That is January 30, 1998. I mean, he is very clear about it; this is what the purpose is. It is to restore public confidence. He indicated at the Alberta branch of the Canadian Bar Association in Calgary that the purpose was to provide a forum for frank discussion and an opportunity to share ideas and debate solutions on a wide range of justice issues of concern to all Albertans.

Why is it taboo to raise questions about alternative mechanisms or alternative solutions to the issue of tenure for judges? Why is that taboo? Why can we not talk about that? And yet it has been suggested by some that maybe we should not address that. So I think Justice Minister Havelock is basically saying what people are saying all across Canada. As the Attorney General, why should he not be able to say that kind of thing?

So what he goes on to say is that studies show clearly that the public's perception, attitude and understanding about the justice system is at a low point, and we want to take whatever steps are necessary to restore their confidence. We must understand how the public perceives the system to be working and empower the public to assist us in changing the system to address the concerns regularly expressed.

Again, I think he is fulfilling the duty that the Supreme Court of Canada clearly assigned to him or recognized in him as an Attorney General. So in that context, then, in the healthy context of democratic debate, he has said that they will examine issues of public confidence in the system, victims' rights and involvement in the system. I think that is a very crucial examination because many people do not understand, for example, the role of a Crown attorney. Is the role of the Crown attorney to represent victims? In part. But the role of the Crown attorney as an independent law officer is there to represent not just the rights of a victim but indeed the rights of an accused.

The Crown attorney, he or she, is simply not the mouthpiece for a particular facet or a particular person, because if that were the case then he would simply be another lawyer, and a Crown attorney is simply not just another lawyer. He is an independent law officer with a broad duty to ensure that fairness in the justice system is done. So the issue of victims' rights and the extent of their involvement in the system is a very important one, because it impacts then on the role of someone like a Crown attorney. Issues of youth crime, of policing, of aboriginal justice and barriers to justice.

* (1710)

So what he has said is: we want to build a blueprint to guide us in making decisions on these matters. Justice Minister Havelock has not been exclusive in that sense. He has asked me to attend; he has asked others to attend and to participate in the actual justice forum. So part of this also involves the Justice minister chairing a steering committee and has invited representatives from the judiciary, the Law Society, the Alberta branch of the Canadian Bar Association, the RCMP, the Alberta association of chiefs of police, First Nation treaty area 6, 7 and 8 , the Metis Nation of Alberta association, the Metis Settlements General Council, Justice Canada, federal department of the Solicitor General, Victim Services and special interest groups to participate in the committee, and indeed there are a number of MLAs. I do not know whether these MLAs are all government MLAs, but I think that there are at least six or so MLAs, six or seven plus him, and then outlines the steering committee's terms of reference and the objectives. I do not want to repeat those; I can just give that document to the member.

But this is a tremendous undertaking which the Minister of Justice in Alberta feels that that province is ready to undertake. I think that we need to be supportive of that process because the ramifications of that process are not simply limited to Albertans, but I think what occurs there in February of 1999 will indeed have ramifications right across Canada, especially if we are successful in coupling a ministerial conference together with that conference. I think they are far ahead of us in terms of that organizational issue and discussion of the issue.

Now, having said that, I do not think that we need to say, well, we will not take any steps here in terms of that kind of a far-reaching justice review. I think there are a number of things that we can do and we will look at doing those, but some of the issues relate to what the member has raised in his questions and the department is taking a look at those. The question is: how do we come up with a Manitoba solution that can build on some of the structure that has already been established in Alberta which I think will benefit all of Canada?

So I am not ruling that out. I am willing to sit down with the member. I think the member knows that. In dealing with the under 12s of the Young Offenders Act, the member has been very proactive, in fact, showed me a brochure that I had not seen yet but that he and other people of this group working to deal with under 12s. I think it is a very good brochure. I think it will address a problem that will not simply create a bureaucracy but in fact deal with an oversight in the law that presently exists. So I am willing to work with him further and develop ideas as they arise.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I just made a few points as the minister was speaking. The one question that I had asked and the minister did not get a chance to respond to and that was the home break-in, just the straight individual that walks in on a Sunday afternoon and gets caught, what can he anticipate? Can the minister quickly respond to that now?

Mr. Toews: In fact, I am sorry I neglected to answer that. The sentences could range quite dramatically because of different judges, different Crowns and that is why the idea of some kind of a minimum sentence appeals to me, or at least a sentencing guideline. If we do not bring about minimum sentences, what about sentencing guidelines? And those guidelines have been the discussion between the judiciary and government for a long period of time. Some would view that as interference with judicial independence. I think that the idea merits more discussion, rather than simply dismissing that as interference with judicial independence.

What I can say is that probably with no prior record, and that I always find difficult to believe because we know this is probably the first time the person got caught, but one would say, I do not know, but we have to assume that this is the first offence that the person actually did, because in my opinion to break into somebody else's house has got to be--I mean, one just does not go in cold off the street and determine I am going to break into somebody's house. So there are other issues that I do not know and I do not understand. The court, of course, has to look at it because the presumption of innocence says that this is a person coming up with a first offence.

So it can range from anything from a suspended sentence because conditional discharges are not available for break and enters because of the maximum life imprisonment. I think conditional discharges are only available for sentences where the penalty is under 14 years. So sentences, the minimum would have to be a suspended sentence, which means that there would be a criminal record. A conditional discharge, of course, means that if the person performs the conditions of that sentence, the record is in fact wiped out. That is not available on a break and enter, and I think that at least is a good thing in view of the other comments that I have made and the concerns expressed by the member.

The other issue then is that a jail sentence under the federal Criminal Code now, the possibility of a jail sentence is more remote, given the implementation of conditional sentences. What has happened--and virtually unilaterally by the federal government--they one day decided that conditional sentences would be a great idea. So anyone who would otherwise be sentenced to two years less a day or less, the judge must consider a conditional sentence.

* (1720)

As I understand the process, and I never appear in a court while the conditional sentence process is under consideration, what happens is that the judge considers the appropriate sentence. If the appropriate sentence prior to conditional sentences being imposed would have been, let us say, 15 months or one year, they would impose that 15 months or one year but then determine whether or not that sentence could be served in the community. And, you know, in my opinion, for what it is worth, that is the kind of thing that brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Who are we kidding? The person is not serving the jail sentence in the community. The person is getting a suspended sentence. That is exactly what they are doing. But, in order to avoid bringing that issue to a head with constituents, federal Parliament has said, oh, but we are sending them to jail. It is just that the judge decided to send them to serve the sentence in the community. Well, that is bafflegab. That is the kind of process, as I have indicated, that brings the administration of justice into disrepute. In my opinion, if the Alberta justice summit wants to look at one issue, that is one of the issues that they can look at. Because we are saying one thing and doing quite another. That is what bothers me the most, the absolute most, about conditional sentences. Because it is not truth in advertising. That is really what it boils down to.

The issue about monitoring conditional sentences, I mean, we have the same monitoring process available as any suspended sentence with probation officers and the like. The fact is Manitoba, I understand, has one of the highest rates of breaches for conditional sentences, which means that Manitobans are well served by their probation officers because they are in fact monitoring these sentences closely. I understand in other provinces it is reaching a crisis point. They cannot continue to work the way they have been. I believe it is British Columbia that is in very serious trouble with all of their conditional sentences. The most troubling aspect about conditional sentences, apart from the lack of truth in advertising, as I have sort of facetiously put it, is the fact that, well, a person is not--I will leave that issue for now. I will move on to something else because I am getting off track. I think my basic concern about conditional sentence has been made.

The other--and I just want to touch on it very slightly--is the fact that if somebody is on a conditional sentence and they breach it and then leave the jurisdiction, the conditional sentence keeps on running and does not stop. The clock does not stop even though the person is in breach, and so they can avoid the responsibilities of the conditional sentence. I mean, again, a tremendous fault in the law which the federal government has not yet addressed. Then if, for example, the court then says, all right, a suspended sentence is not appropriate, a jail sentence is appropriate, but I am going to give a conditional sentence, if we get past that and say, well, a conditional sentence is not appropriate, I would say that in terms of that kind of an offence, if we look at the offences, it would be about three to six months that these people would be sentenced to.

Now the issue of multiple break and enters, which many of these people are caught on, or tremendous damage done, one could see a sentence in the range of up to three to four years. That could well happen, and it is not unusual, but in the situation where you have stated now what is the sentence, the answer has been very much complicated by the advent of conditional sentencing. Whereas before there would be at least three to six months and probably 20 years ago it would have been more in the range of two years less a day, now they are serving their sentences in the community, and I think that is a concern as far as I am concerned. That is one of the reasons we have opposed conditional sentences in this province. It is not an issue of resources; it is an issue of whether that is an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the response from the minister. In an earlier response he made reference to a conference which he was at where the federal bureaucrats, if you like, made presentation in what they seemed to try to say is that the public perception was inaccurate. I take that into consideration, that statement into consideration along with how he just responded to that particular question that I had posed, where he talked about the conditional sentencing or the suspended sentence for the individual, the first time offender that breaks into someone's house. I think that the reality of the situation will reinforce the public's lack of confidence.

What the bureaucrats were telling the minister in Ottawa, or wherever that meeting was, I believe they are talking about perception, and I believe that the bureaucrats are in fact wrong on this point unless they can demonstrate otherwise, and that is, and I made reference to it earlier; put simply, that if in fact the public is wrong, they have to be communicated that message through the department, yet the department does not necessarily have the ability to be able to do that. I say that because what one would expect that they could get for information, or what I would have expected a year ago, if I posed a question, break and enters--what sort of dispositions have we had for break and enters? Well, the minister could have said, well, we have had 150 cases; 45 of those cases were suspended sentences. We had five cases that were more than a year of incarceration, or some sort of a summary so I can then reflect that to my constituents which then it allows me to evaluate whether or not that is meeting public expectations, if that makes sense.

The minister made reference then to Alberta and the Alberta task force, and I went through the terms of references and the types of things in which that task force is going to be doing and that they might be leading the way. Well, when I look at the perception and the reality of what is happening within the judicial system, I believe very firmly that we need to be taking some sort of action. If we are not going to be taking it independently because we have to face that what is happening in Alberta is going to be addressing the current situation here in Manitoba, then there might be merit, for example, of having representatives from Manitoba to participate in some of the dialogue that is occurring with respect to the Alberta task force. Maybe that participation would then also be mandated, for example, to conduct some public sort of input for Manitobans so that maybe what we can come up with is, by using some of the expertise from the Alberta situation and bringing to the table some of the maybe unique characteristics that Manitoba might have to be able to contribute, or at the very least to be listening in as to what is happening, that we will be better able to take actions on some of the things that are coming out from Alberta.

I would suggest, yes, it would be wonderful if we had the national government take the lead role, had a national royal commission, it went right from one coast to the other, address the issues head on, sought for provincial co-operation and involvement so that everyone as much as possible was singing the same song, I think there would be tremendous benefit by that. But because that might not necessarily be happening to the degree in which we want to see it happen inside Manitoba, I do not believe we should then be ignoring the need for change.

Alberta seems to be taking action, or at least it appears to be taking action on that change. Manitoba seems to be open to it, but I have not seen the tangible action other than the odd directive that goes out, such as the minister's press statement on bail, for example, for hard offenders or harsh offenders. But seeing some sort of a commitment to whether it is getting more directly involved in what is happening in Alberta with their task force or coming up with something that is going to be happening addressing the issues within the province I think are very important, because I will go right back to the way in which I started it in my response by saying that the perception often turns into reality.

* (1730)

If the reality is wrong, according to the federal bureaucrats, then we are doing a terrible job in communicating what reality actually is. It is not a question of: let us see how hard we can be on the criminals. I think there are areas in which we need to look at more alternatives than our courts. I think at this point that is where I will move on to where we can get communities more involved in coming up with dispositions.

I had an interesting discussion with an RCMP officer where he had talked, for example, about the possibility if RCMP officers instead of having to go through the courts directly that they can actually refer a case to a youth justice committee. I think that that can be a very positive thing, because the sooner that you can get, let us say, the offender, whether it is a young offender or it is someone above the age of 18, before a committee of his or her peers or before some sort of quasi-judicial board, I think there is great benefit, because then they are going to realize the consequence that much better to the action that they in fact have taken.

On a very personal note, I can talk about the youth justice committee that I am involved in, and I can recall in the early years where we would be hearing a case that the individual youth might have committed the crime over a year ago and, as a justice committee, we are hearing it now. For someone who is 12 or 13 or 14 years old, it is hard for them to relate that the action I did a year ago, now I am going to have to do maybe community service or write an essay or whatever it might be.

So I think that there are many things which we can do within the judicial system to lighten the responsibility on the bureaucracy, if you like, and get the communities more involved.

For an adult, whether you are 25 years old and you go into a local Zellers and you shoplift and it is your first-time offence, maybe there should be, and the minister can likely tell me whether or not there currently is, but maybe they should have the opportunity to go before, again, some sort of a quasi-judicial group of individuals, again, that is based on the communities, from within the communities.

The minister made reference to Newfoundland on break-ins: Newfoundland 700 and Manitoba I believe it was 1,400. Well, I would attribute it to two things, two reasons why it would be that way. In Newfoundland, maybe it is the smaller communities. In smaller communities people know each other a little bit more, maybe there is a little bit more community involvement and so forth. [interjection] The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) says Liberal government. Well, that might have had something to do with it too. You never know.

But on a more serious note, Mr. Chairperson, there is no doubt some correlation to the sizes of the different communities and the lifestyles and so forth, but I also believe that there has to be some consideration to the types of dispositions that are actually being handed out. I would love to get that information, but you will never get it. At least to the best of my knowledge, I do not think you are going to be able to get that type of information, because you would need to have other provinces participating in being computerized and providing that information.

Well, having said that, well, then it reinforces that if Newfoundland has been more successful in certain areas because of more of that community involvement, to what degree have we as a government or as legislators gone out to promote that community development.

The member for The Maples has often talked about getting tough on the causes of crime. Well, Mr. Chairperson, when I look at that I think the best way in which you can get tough on those causes is by getting the communities involved. You are talking about your community clubs, you are talking about parent councils, you are talking about a wide assortment of different groups that are out there.

I would suggest to you that you probably have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 to 600 people in any community depending on the size of the community. When I say 300 to 600 I am talking in my area, in the area that I represent, somewhere in that ballpark of individuals who are sincerely interested and would be interested in getting involved. What we have to do is not only provide the vehicle in which they can get involved, we also have to be prepared to provide the support services.

I think, for example, with the youth justice committees, it is an excellent vehicle. I think that if you look at youth justice committees, the concept is wonderful. It can work, but we also have to ensure that the support system is there below it. Then, if we do that, we will have healthier justice committees . By having healthier justice committees, we can look at possible expansions of the roles that they are currently playing because, after all, they are volunteer-based, and as well they should remain volunteer-based.

I would welcome the opportunity to be able to see something established in the communities that would deal with individuals over the age of 18 and bringing those individuals before some sort of a quasi-judicial body that is based from within the constituency. If in fact there are things that are available, I would ask for the minister to comment on those, because it is something on which I would take immediate action in trying to make it more reality within the area which I represent, because I know that it can make a difference.

Programs like Citizens for Crime Awareness group--the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and Doug Simpson I know have done wonders out in The Maples and surrounding area as a result of that particular program. The need to expand programs such as that--in fact, that might be some sort of a potential quasi-judicial body in the future that could be dealing with individuals over the age of 18.

Mr. Chairperson, I think the most valuable resource that an elected politician has is indeed the constituents which they represent. If they can tap into their minds on the many different issues facing Manitobans, we will come up with many different solutions to the problems that we face today. Having said that, I would suggest that the best way in which we can tap into those minds on the broader scale of justice is that we take some tangible action to demonstrate that there is a need to review the broader picture, the general judicial system that we have today, with the idea of coming up with recommendations that I believe can make a significant difference here in the province of Manitoba.

I will say one thing about this particular minister. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, in my 10 years, at least this minister, more than others that were there before him, is prepared to take, or at least prepared to say things which other ministers have not been as bold, if I can put it that way. As a result of that, some might argue he has gotten himself into a little bit of hot water in different areas, but I respect the fact that the minister is at least talking in many different areas which I believe warrant discussion. That discussion has not been taking place, and I would not want to see the minister stop at least talking about it.

It does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything. I know when he made reference to the elected judges, well, that is only a reference. He was not saying that he supported elected judges. I can tell him I do not support elected judges. I think that would be a move in the wrong direction. But I recognize that there is a need at least for some sort of a discussion to occur. When we talk about terms for judges, Mr. Chairperson, I, as an individual, do not have any problem with terms. I would like to see the Liberal Party have more dialogue and discussion about some of those judicial reforms that could be taking place. Terms for provincial appointees, I do not see any sort of a problem with that. They can still advance afterwards, especially if it is a fixed term, a one-time term appointment. I think there is some merit to that.

* (1740)

I would encourage the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to continue on in terms of his frankness and his willingness to be able to address different issues, because I think that has really been lacking in certain areas with respect to the Department of Justice.

In the past, there is the one minister we had, the only thing that he or she talked about was the Young Offenders Act. You know, we would ask questions in QP--the Young Offenders Act. Everything was to blame the feds; there are things which the feds could be doing. I do not dispute that, and we will continue to lobby in our own different ways to try to get those changes. But I think what is important is that we do what we can within the province of Manitoba.

The minister made reference to the young offenders under the age of 12. There have been members from all parties--I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) was critical in the establishment, I believe, of the youth justice committee out in that area. My ideas came from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). I know the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) has seen some of the benefits of it and is critical in the establishment out in that area.

I applaud those types of actions. This is a minister who saw a good idea with young offenders under the age of 12 and has provided no money but the support, and who knows, the money might be coming, you know, Mr. Chairperson, if, in fact, it is warranted. The minister has not been approached for money on that particular issue, and I do not know if he will ever be approached at least at this point in time. I think that what we see is a pilot project. It deals with young offenders and this is the reason why I bring it up. It deals with young offenders under the age of 12.

The Young Offenders Act which is a federal responsibility--it would be easy for the minister to say that that is federal responsibility; we do not have anything to do with it. It would be very easy for the minister to say that but here clearly demonstrates that the province can make a difference. I think that we need to apply that to other areas, that even though the federal government might play the lead role, that does not necessarily mean that we should advocate or say that we do not have any responsibility for that, because it is wrong.

We do have a responsibility, and, Mr. Chairperson, in particular, I look at this particular initiative, and I very much appreciate the efforts from some of the staff individuals and from the minister who have been most co-operative in making this happen, and the biggest reason why, if this gets off the ground, will be because of the local police force. It is the local police force, in particular Chief Cassels, that warrants virtually a good portion of the credit because it cannot work--and, of course, Greg Graceffo--the pronunciation, Hansard can get in touch with the minister for the proper spelling of it because I will get a phone call asking for the spelling, no doubt.

Mr. Chairperson, there was a discussion that took place in which there was a very high sense of co-operation in the board and the board members from this particular justice committee.

I do believe that there are many good ideas that are out there, so if the minister is saying that, look, at this stage in the game what we want to do is to see what is going to happen in Alberta, well, then, I would suggest to the minister that he has a responsibility to at least become better informed as to what is happening in Alberta, in the Alberta task force.

When I say better informed, what I am talking about is to include individuals from Manitoba in some sort of a fashion in the process. Part of that has to include public feedback from Manitobans. It has to include representation from different stakeholders, in particular individuals whom I would classify as the laypeople. It has to include those individuals, the average person in the street, and that group, if you like, then can be mandated some sort of opportunity to participate with what is happening in Alberta.

If the minister believes that Alberta is, in fact, going to be leading the way, well, then, I would suggest that we should at least participate in some fashion, and, who knows, as a result you might see other provinces wanting to do otherwise, but, Mr. Chairperson, I would ultimately argue that there is a responsibility today for us to take tangible actions in trying to see the need for change being addressed in our judicial system.

We have seen change occur, whether it is in health care, and the government has been soundly criticized, justifiably so in many of the things that are happening in health care, but change has been happening. We have seen the significant changes in education, Mr. Chairperson, and some might argue great changes; others might argue not so great changes. Some might argue not enough changes, especially on the whole school divisions part, but that is another hour of discussion that I could probably enter into.

But the bottom line is everything needs to change, that one should not resist change, and I think what has been happening is perception and reality is just not--I believe is not very far off. Unless, of course, this minister's civil servants can prove to me otherwise, I would suggest to you that very few of my constituents would support someone, for example, who breaks into someone's home, no matter what circumstances it might have been, given a complete discharge or suspended sentence, not a discharge which is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I use that as an example, and it is not, as I say--and I want to emphasize it is not to say that I am taking a stand that on every crime you have to start getting harsher because I think there are alternative ways of dealing with many different crimes that maybe are before our courts today that could be dealt with through our communities and in all likelihood would be far more successful.

On a side note because I would be remiss if I did not at least mention it, in one of the discussions I had with a chap over at the courthouse, he had indicated that one of the things that frustrated him was--and it was one of our more senior police officers who had indicated this to me--the whole issue of remands, how often. The question that he had posed was he often wondered what is the actual cost to our judicial system because of the number of remands that take place. It is not to say that remands are not necessarily warranted, but he definitely called into question, amongst other things such as the bail, also the remand. I think that there is a wide variety of issues that need to be dealt with in Justice. I would look to this particular minister, who has been bolder than most, and suggest to this particular minister that he take strong action on behalf of the public of Manitoba and take the next step in not only recognizing the need for that change but to look at some form of independent group of individuals that will at least start the ball rolling. It does not have to be a costly venture.

On that note, I am done asking questions. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has been most patient with me in asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

* (1750)

Mr. Toews: If I could respond to some of those things because, by and large, I think they are all good issues that are being raised. I want to, first of all, emphasize that I am not satisfied with simply Alberta taking independent action and that we will not be taking action in this province on some aspects. I think there are aspects of our justice system that we can address, and we are on a continuous basis.

For example, the member made reference to it, the initiatives which are broadly supported in the Department of Justice, the opposition of bail on certain types of offences. It is not necessarily a ministerial directive, certainly one that I supported, but indeed was formulated by members within the department. Certainly I had discussions with my deputy in that respect, but their position was essentially formulated within the department. The issue of the home invasion and the sentencing on home invasions, again, a very clear initiative of this government and the department and prosecutors specifically. I would venture to guess that Manitoba sentences in that area are probably the heaviest in the nation. Again, I will not make any apologies in that respect.

So it is not that we are standing still. There are issues, though, in terms of the broader review that do need to take place. We have had a review of our civil justice system in this province, and a number of recommendations came out of that. Again, there was broad participation in that of the civil justice. The issue, when we get into the criminal justice area, is slightly different because we, of course, do not have the control over the making of changes to laws and things like that. One aspect, which I think has been somewhat problematic in Alberta, which we have to be, of course, very cautious about here as well, is the extent to which judges are willing to participate in that kind of review. I understand from the news release that the judges, in fact, are a direct participant in that review process. I understand that, over the last little while, the actual status of the judges' participation in that review has been somewhat more withdrawn. They are not as fully participating in that process as perhaps the news release indicated back in January 1998.

So the issue of, if we are going to make changes in the justice system, how do we have the judges participate, and I think it is necessary for them to participate, but participate in a way that preserves their independence--[interjection] Well, the member indicates retired justices. If we are going to make changes, we have to deal with the people who are working in the system. So, in one way or another, that is an important issue.

At the same time, the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about not mixing the role of the executive and the judiciary. They have stated that in a number of cases, especially the recent provincial judges' pay case. They have been very clear--the judiciary not to be involved in certain aspects. It is an issue that I have talked about here in this capacity. One of the things that they certainly indicate in the Alberta--and I do not know whether this was actually in January. I believe it was later on that this revision came about that, in order to preserve the traditional independence of the judiciary, the members of the judiciary will serve in an advisory capacity to the steering committee.

So what does that mean? I think it may well have something to do with the Chief Justice's recent pronouncements in the Supreme Court of Canada about his position that judges, superior court judges, no longer participate in fact-finding missions, those kinds of things, and I think some concern raised in that context with the Krever inquiry and the political issues that arise when you have a judge performing essentially an executive function because that is what they are doing. So we are being more and more mindful of that role, but at the same time I am faced with the problem, if we are going to make changes in that regard, how do we do it in a positive way, involve the judiciary and yet protect their independence? So the Alberta experiment here is a very, very crucial one because what they have said at the beginning and what they are doing now has been evolving. I believe that by the time this process is over, there will be other changes. It is inevitable because of the constitutional responsibilities of the executive on the one hand and the judiciary on the other.

The aspect that we have not yet addressed here in Manitoba is how do we involve the public in that discussion? Aside from the judiciary, how do we involve the public? That is something that I want to see how the Alberta experiment proceeds because I classify it as an experiment. It is one thing for me as the minister to make statements and the member indicates bold statements. I did not realize that they were bold until after I had made them and realized that some people would consider them bold. I simply thought I was expressing some of the concerns that had been raised by my constituents, and when my constituents raise these concerns with me, I listen to them and I say, you know, these people make a lot of sense. I have been elected to represent their interests, not mine, their interests.

I think they are calling on me to exercise judgment in respect of what possible solution, but to stand up and say, no, we have been doing business this way for the last 125 years and therefore no sense changing now. For a politician it is very, very easy in some sense to avoid raising these issues because we are here for one term or we are here for two terms, then we go on with other aspects of our lives, and so it is very easy to avoid it, but I think we as politicians, if we are really concerned about making changes, have to take our constituents seriously.

When they raise these issues, we have to realize that many of these people have thought about these ideas for a long, long time, and they may not understand every aspect of the judicial system or the justice system, but they can see what is happening to their communities, and they can see what is happening in the streets. They realize that not everything is the way it should be. They recognize good programs when they are implemented. They are supportive of good programs when they are implemented, but I think that, whenever we approach the issue of change, the real problem is this--and it was commented on by a political commentator about 500 years ago; he talked about it specifically in the area of constitutional change. Five hundred years ago he said this: The problem with constitutional change, and I would equate this with any change, is that the people who benefit from that change are not yet identified and do not realize the benefit that they may be getting. The people who are presently in the system and see their interest being affected will raise the opposition to that. So where do you find your support then for making the change: the people who do not know yet of the benefits that could come of that change or the people who are opposing change? So for a politician, in many respects, it is easy to sit back and say, well, I know I will not ruffle any feathers if I just sort of keep the boat floating in a certain direction, but I do not think that is good enough. So that political commentator, what he said 500 years ago or 400 years ago, it is as true today. So we need to bear that in mind.

The member says the same thing about our health care reforms. You know, there are certain vested interests that would say, do not make the changes because we are comfortable with the way things are and even those types of issues. Where do you find your support? The mass of people out there, they are more interested in earning their living on a day-to-day basis and so are not always following some of these issues, but I think the area of justice now, in the same way that we recognize that health care needed to be reformed, many people are coming to the conclusion that this needs to be looked at and new ideas need to be discussed.

I would love to continue my answer, but I understand that the clock is running out on me. I will continue if I still have some time.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.