The Acting Chairperson (Edward Helwer): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

We are on Resolution 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support, on page 107.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Before we get into other matters and continue with the line of questioning on the so-called gang hotline, I just want to provide the minister with correspondence that I had sent, carbon-copied to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik). I was not sure and I cannot assume, I suppose, that the minister would have received this from the Minister of Highways.

I will just read the letter into the record. It is a letter addressed to Councillors De Smedt and Vandal of the City of Winnipeg. It says:

"One of my constituents has contacted me to raise an issue that I believe warrants attention. Mr. Ed Terlecki, who lost a neighbour to an accident at the busy crosswalk at Main and Jefferson, is concerned for public safety during the upcoming Pan American Games. He points out that the influx of out-of-province visitors may put pedestrians at a greater risk; these visitors will tend to be unfamiliar with our unique crossing signals, and thus fail, to stop.

"In view of this increasing danger, can there be an effort to raise visitors' awareness, for example, through brochures handed out at tourist information sites and car rental agencies or billboards on the main highways entering the city? A pedestrian awareness campaign may also be advisable.

"I look forward to hearing from you."

* (1450)

The letter is dated May 27. Since I have been made aware that the minister and his deputy have had discussions about some kind of publication to advise visitors to the city of unique Manitoba laws, and presumably underlying that would be a concern to maintain public safety above all else, and if that is the case, I am wondering if the minister has considered this yet, and if not, whether he would consider putting in something about our crosswalks.

I might add that we did make some calls around to some other jurisdictions, and we are advised that there are indeed some other major North American cities with crosswalks similar to what Winnipeg has, but many jurisdictions do not have such crosswalks, even as near as Fargo, for example.

The minister surely is aware that these crosswalks are, from time to time, not properly used by pedestrians and from time to time are not properly observed by motorists. Some people have referred to these crosswalks as death traps. I know improvements have been made, particularly with the installation of the push-button activated lights. Some, though, do not have that. Most do. But even today we see cars sometimes just glide right through a crosswalk when the lights are activated and a pedestrian is partway across the road. Often, and I think it is a shared experience of many, the vehicle that is gliding through is an out-of-province vehicle.

Now this particular crosswalk is not the only issue obviously. This is a particularly busy one, but it pertains to all the crosswalks in Winnipeg. I am just wondering if the minister could make an undertaking that, if they are proceeding with a publication, this would be included.

Now, having asked that, I also want to make this observation. I think that putting it in a publication along with other issues might bury this. This matter I think deserves, as well, some further notice to visitors, whether it is through billboards, which I think could be cost-shared between the province and the city, but as well with some publication perhaps to car rental agencies that is directed specifically at visitors. In other words, this is a matter I think of public safety, and I think the observation of my constituent is a very valid one, and I just wonder if the minister can now respond.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I thank the member for that question and for the expression of that concern. I think that when we deal with issues related to the rules of the road, the first responsibility, of course, is the licensed driver has that responsibility, that the licensed driver understand what his or her requirements are when operating a motor vehicle in any particular jurisdiction. It is a very confusing thing from time to time, but that does not lessen the obligation of every driver in the jurisdiction, including people from out of province, to familiarize themselves with the rules of the road.

I have travelled throughout the world and have driven in many countries, including Mexico and Spain, throughout most of Europe, and it is true that the rules change and the ways of doing things change in each jurisdiction. We do not have to go as far though as Mexico or Spain or other parts of Europe. We can look at jurisdictions right here in Canada which have different traffic control devices for different uses. I know there is a jurisdiction, I believe that is here in Canada and I believe it is British Columbia or Alberta, that, when there is a flashing green light, it means: take caution before you proceed to the left in going across an oncoming lane of traffic.

In Manitoba, when there is a flashing green light it means that you can safely turn left, as I understand it, so even here in Canada we have differences in that. Another example that comes to mind is that I believe in almost every jurisdiction of Canada except one, right turns on red lights are permitted. I think the only exception is Quebec. I could be mistaken on that, but I know there is one jurisdiction in Canada that does not permit that.

So there are, even within Canada, a multitude of different laws depending upon the particular highway traffic act in place. Not only that, in respect of the city by-laws, city signs and zones, those differ again from province to province. So I think it becomes a very difficult issue when we start naming some of these rules and say: this may be different from your jurisdiction. Essentially, a driver coming to a new jurisdiction and has to pick up the entire rules of the road book from motor vehicles, study them, familiarize himself or herself with that in order to ensure himself or herself that in fact they understand the requirements of the road.

The member correctly pointed out that members of my department, after I directed them to look at this issue, or they may have already been considering it–often they are doing things in the public interest without ministerial direction or input–we suggested that we look at the issue of publishing in a pamphlet, unique Manitoba laws that may be outside of the context of the very specific differences in highway traffic acts in various jurisdictions. Again, even in the American experience, we have numerous differences in the various states in that respect.

* (1500)

So we looked at that particular issue, and indeed I can tell the member that, as late as this morning, we discussed this issue with the deputy minister. The deputy minister drew to my attention the tourism booklet that has been published for the Pan Am Games. Within that booklet, in fact, there is some setting out, generally speaking, of the laws of Canada and the laws of Manitoba that make it somewhat distinct. I noted, for example, they talked about the gun laws in Canada which are appreciably different from laws regulating guns in the United States and perhaps in other jurisdictions. The tourism booklet also pointed out some rules of the road in respect of the consumption of alcohol. As I recall that booklet, it specifically mentioned the .05 law that we passed here in Manitoba where your car can be seized for a period of time where you blow over .05. It also mentioned a law that is still not universally accepted in Canada or has not universally been passed by all jurisdictions in Canada, and that deals with the seizure of motor vehicles for suspended driving.

The concern that was raised–and members of my department have discussed this with various authorities, I believe, including the police–was that publishing a separate booklet over and above that general information would, in fact, perhaps leave a negative perception about the tourism opportunities in Manitoba. Indeed, not long after I gave that interview in one of the newspapers, I either read it or someone drew it to my attention that a person wrote in a letter complaining that I would even suggest publishing a separate booklet outlining Manitoba's laws, because it would give a negative perception about Winnipeg and the Pan Am Games.

I recognize that concern, but as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has pointed out, there is a public safety issue. I think we need to not only cater to the needs of tourists in terms of ensuring that they enjoy themselves, we also need to ensure that while they enjoy themselves, they do so safely and within the bounds of the law.

So the discussion this morning, without getting into too much of the detail, centred around the issue of whether or not there should be perhaps a specific booklet sent out to very targeted areas where tourists would perhaps come into contact with them.

So, for example, if we targeted rental agencies, specifically, where rental vehicles were utilized, or ports of entry coming into Canada from the United States or indeed at our tourism information offices, should there be a pamphlet specifically addressing certain specific laws unique to Manitoba? The laws that we focused in on were more laws that deal with the seizure of motor vehicles. So in addition to the tourism booklet that sets out those laws, we are considering and we will discuss with various agencies the utility of a targeted pamphlet in specific areas to see whether or not that would not benefit public safety.

Now I have heard the member's concern in respect of the specific issue of crosswalks. While that is a very important issue–and it is certainly something that I see no reason why the city cannot consider that particular issue–what about all of the other differences between our Highway Traffic Act and motor vehicle regulation legislation in other jurisdictions? So it is not as simple as simply putting up billboards warning people about crosswalks. Where, then, do we draw the line in terms of what a stranger or a foreigner to our jurisdiction would need to know?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am just trying to interpret what the minister said then. Is he saying that he does not favour, first of all, the brochure or publication to go out to tourists generally, although he may be in favour of one in a targeted way? And, second of all, he is not inclined to favour including in that publication a warning or an explanation of Winnipeg's crosswalk system.

Mr. Toews: As indicated, this is not a decision that I would make by myself. This is a decision that would be made in conjunction with a number of agencies having a better understanding of the totality of the issues involved. As I indicated, I have no difficulty with tourists receiving the general publication book that is already available to them and I believe has been published by the Pan Am Games Society or in any event an organization linked to the success of the games, ensuring the success of the games. I believe it is by the Pan Am Society.

I do not want to underestimate the potential for injury to someone who gets into a motor vehicle and then without knowing the rules of the road proceeds to drive that motor vehicle in a manner that would assume that the rules of the road in Manitoba are the same as in other jurisdictions.

As I indicated, there are substantive differences in the law that are glaring differences that other jurisdictions have not incorporated. I simply point out laws like the seizure of motor vehicles in the province of Manitoba.

* (1510)

The issue with respect to how much information needs to go out is also a problematic one. Once you give information, you have to make sure that you are not misleading anyone. So let us deal with matters like the seizure of motor vehicles for prostitution-related activities. In that context, virtually every jurisdiction that I know–but I am probably wrong; it is not an area that I have much experience in, in terms of travelling around the world. Most jurisdictions, if I could say, have some kind of prohibition against prostitution-related activities. I know that there are some jurisdictions that do not have those prohibitions, but, Mr. Chair, generally speaking, I think people know that certain legal consequences can flow as a result of propositioning streetwalkers or prostitutes generally. The question, then, is: do you also let them know in Manitoba that, in addition to the legal consequences that could flow, in Manitoba we specifically have laws that deal with the seizure of motor vehicles where a person conducts himself or herself in a particular way?

That issue by itself is not a difficult one. The question is: how is this information conveyed to people coming to our jurisdiction? And as many problems as we may think of in terms of communicating that information and the seizure of motor vehicles information generally, compounds when you get into the myriad of detail, when you look at the distinctions in The Highway Traffic Act. The control devices on crosswalks are not unique to Manitoba. They are in many jurisdictions in one form or another. Indeed, I think the figure of the person walking and the X is recognized in many jurisdictions as indicating individuals have a limited right-of-way over motor vehicles.

I daresay that even among Manitobans, many of them do not know the rules of the road regarding crosswalks where these flashing signs are. If the member will recall when those crosswalks were still installed before the flashing lights, there used to be signs 50 or 100 feet before those crosswalks which stated: Do not pass to X. For some reason or another now those signs do not appear to be there anymore. They simply have the push button right on the crosswalk which activates the flashing lights.

So how many people in Manitoba know today whether they can pass another motor vehicle within those 50 or 100 feet before the crosswalk, even when the lights are not flashing, or whether they are free to pass in that area provided that the sign has not been turned on, and that is by activating the button?

So I am not opposed to in a very practical way advising members of the public what the rules of the road are, but it becomes almost an insurmountable problem in terms of determining which ones do you mention and which ones do you not mention.

Let us say we had massive billboards all over the city, and I am just speculating here, saying: when you see these flashing lights, you cannot cross that walkway. The entire Pan Am Games goes off without a hitch; not one person is injured or dies on those crosswalks as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle. What happens though if a driver coming from another jurisdiction where the flashing green light does not mean that it is safe to turn, as it does here in Manitoba, what if this flashing green light signals to that driver, as they do in some jurisdictions, that it is not creating a right-of-way for you. It is simply saying that it is permitted to turn left provided there is no oncoming traffic. So, if that driver was then killed, the member, I know, would stand up in the House and say: You spent all that money on advertising a crosswalk and not one dime was put forward to explaining the significance of the flashing green light, and not one dime was spent to explain the significance of the flashing red light which permits drivers to turn right, provided there is no traffic coming through the intersection on a perpendicular right or direction of travel.

So it is not that I am opposed. I think what we have to look at is what is the responsibility of the driver who either comes to this jurisdiction in their own motor vehicle or rents a motor vehicle in this jurisdiction for a period of one or two weeks. Does that driver have the right simply to say, well, I have a licence by informal or other means of reciprocity? I am entitled to use this driver's licence to drive on the streets of Winnipeg or the streets and highways of Manitoba, and so I do not have to concern myself because, you know, the only difference really between Manitoba law and the jurisdiction I come from is this flashing red light. They have warned me about it in billboards, or this flashing light at a crosswalk, they warned me about it in billboards. So, as long as I remember those two things, I will be all right. Well, the matter is not that simple. There are literally dozens of differences between jurisdictions and what is permitted.

The other day I was driving in a motor vehicle with a police officer. We were at an intersection with a light, and the light was green. The police officer driving this vehicle made a U-turn under the light. Now I always understood from my driver training many, many years ago that you could not make a U-turn under–[interjection] The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) asks if they had red lights back when I took driver training. [interjection] Well, I guess it was a little more informal then. I think it was sort of my father sitting in the seat next to me giving me the benefit of his wisdom.

I was told, and I believe the driver training books at the time indicated you could not make a U-turn at an intersection governed by a set of lights. So when I saw this officer do this, I thought to myself now here is an opportunity to ask somebody without jeopardizing myself. In fact, he indicated that I could make that kind of a U-turn, as he did. So I am just hoping that that direction or that advice from that peace officer was correct.

* (1520)

Frankly, Mr. Chair, if I go out tomorrow and I am at an intersection and decide to make a turn on a green light, a U-turn on a green light, and another police officer stops me and says, look, one of the most basic things you probably learned in driver's education is that you cannot do that, the obligation is still on me to determine what the rules of the road were. I may have a good case to make before a judge if I wanted to explain my position in that way, but ultimately, under our Highway Traffic Act, if I rely on bad information that does not excuse my conduct.

When a government puts itself in the position of advising people on what the law is, it has to be very careful to the extent that it wants to do that, or should properly do that, because to the extent that a government advises a certain course of action is right in that context, some measure of liability might fall upon the government.

For example, if you look down a highway and there are dotted lines and those dotted lines would signify to me that there is a degree of reliance that I can place in those lines to allow me to pass a motor vehicle that I might be following, if I then rely on that dotted line and pass, and for some reason the highway crew in putting out those dotted lines did not follow the right procedures, did not take into account a significant dip that would have hidden oncoming traffic, and I am killed, my estate would have some measure of grievance against the province. So, while I have a great deal of sympathy for what is being stated here, what we need to do is ensure that we are also not misleading and that we do what is possible, realistically possible. So, having said that, then I hope that has made my position clear.

I will have my deputy minister forward this on to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Praznik), because I see that this letter was in fact addressed to the City of Winnipeg and copied to the Minister of Highways. I will seek any direction from him or advice from him and perhaps the departments can see if there is something that can be done in this particular case that meets all of the objections and concerns that I have and, in fact, ensure that public safety is maintained.

Mr. Mackintosh: The second preliminary matter going back to the appointment of Leonard Doust, given that we are looking at four working days now, has the minister or his department or any officials in his department received the report of Mr. Doust since we discussed this yesterday?

Mr. Toews: As indicated last date in Estimates, there is in fact a time limit that was set out in the terms of reference agreed to by the individual referenced by the member for St. Johns. The status of that situation has not changed since yesterday.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the special counsel, Mr. Doust, sought any amendment to the terms of reference since it was concluded on April 30?

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, if I believe this is the same question that was asked yesterday, there was no amendment sought or no amendment granted since the terms of reference that have been made public were concluded.

Mr. Mackintosh: My question yesterday was just specifically on the deadline. Has the department received any further information from the special counsel since we discussed this yesterday?

Mr. Toews: There has been no contact, Mr. Chairperson, of any sort since yesterday.

Mr. Mackintosh: Yesterday I asked if the minister could provide the directions that were issued by his department regarding the gang hotline. I am wondering if the minister has those materials now.

Mr. Toews: I do not have any additional information at this time. Perhaps my misunderstanding was that Family Services in the other committee room was proceeding and that I had asked my deputy to prepare this information in whatever form we eventually agreed to by Monday. I am hoping that will be prepared by Monday.

Mr. Mackintosh: Yesterday we also had requested the minister to confirm how many calls were logged on the gang hotline between the date of December 8, 1998, and May. The minister, as I recall, said he thought there were eight calls logged in total. I wonder if the minister can confirm or expand on that answer today.

Mr. Toews: That was not what I stated yesterday, but indeed what I would suggest is that we leave this matter for Monday when all the information that I should disclose is before me and also to allow my officials to consider whether it would be appropriate to release any numbers outside of the context of the numbers that have already been disclosed in the House.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister aware of whether the Winnipeg Police Service, which I understood from the minister's comments administered this line until May 10, kept a record of how many calls were being made to the hot line over time?

Mr. Toews: I have no knowledge of how the City of Winnipeg retained its information or the Police Service retained that information in its administration of the phone line.

* (1530)

Mr. Mackintosh: Last week the minister stated publicly that the tracing of 9-4-5 numbers was done to monitor and prevent internal abuse. I wonder if the minister can explain what he meant by that.

Mr. Toews: I do not think that gives the entire context of the conversation that I had with members of the media outside of the House relating to that issue. One of the things that I made very clear to members of the media was that we would be looking at these matters and getting back to them very quickly with the information that could be provided. Indeed, I believe it was at 4:30 on that same afternoon we provided them with information that, in fact, has been tabled in the House already.

The issue of tracing, of course, should be made clear. The department did not engage in any active tracing of phone lines in that sense of the word, but, again, that is what my information is. I have no reason to doubt that, but I will be receiving the information that I can share with the member on Monday. If anything changes in respect of any pertinent facts or if any pertinent facts are drawn to my attention that may be of use to the member and I am properly entitled to divulge them, I will do so.

Mr. Mackintosh: I simply asked the minister why he said that the tracing was done to prevent internal abuse. Was he aware that there was some misuse of the line by people who are employed by the government of Manitoba with 9-4-5 numbers? Why was it that this particular software option was contracted for for the gang hotline?

Mr. Toews: That is information that my staff can provide me with. I will deal with that on Monday.

Mr. Mackintosh: When did the minister receive information with respect to calls that I had made to the gang hotline? What was the date?

Mr. Toews: Again, it is information that is being put together for the benefit of the member. I believe that that is information that I can share with him in due course. I will provide that to him in the course of these Estimates.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am just asking the minister to just go by personal recollection here. It is not a matter that he has to rely on his staff for. I am just asking what is his recollection of when he received that information.

Mr. Toews: I would rather confirm that recollection with any notes that might be available. So I am not prepared to engage in speculation. There are literally hundreds of pieces of information that come forward to my attention on a weekly basis, and exactly the hour and time and date is not always easily identifiable. I will, in fact, make every reasonable endeavour to determine to my satisfaction when that information came to my attention, but I do not recall the specific date with a sufficient degree of accuracy that would allow me to speculate at this time.

Mr. Mackintosh: The information that was provided to me stating when calls were made from my office number in the Legislature here were given in a handwritten note that was prepared by Mr. Haasbeek, I understand, from another piece of paper, another document. I am just wondering if the minister can tell us what the document was that Mr. Haasbeek copied from and who had prepared that document.

Mr. Toews: If the member can show me that document, I can identify whose handwriting it was. If I could see that document, I can identify that document and then make that determination.

Mr. Mackintosh: No, the issue is, because I understand from Mr. Haasbeek that he did that, he told me that on Friday, but what document did the information come from? What was it? Was it a handwritten note from Ms. Huggan or what was it? What was the document that listed the calls to the gang hotline?

Mr. Toews: Well, if you can show me the document, I will identify it, and if I cannot identify where it came from, I will endeavour to find out where it came from.

Mr. Mackintosh: No, I want to make it clear to the minister that my concern is not the document I have. The document I have was prepared by Mr. Haasbeek, according to information given to me by him on Friday. I want to know what document Mr. Haasbeek got his information from and who prepared that document.

Mr. Toews: Again, I think we are just going in circles here. The member produces the report or the document, I will identify it, and I will get you the information.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, let us put it a different way then. What document did the minister have or his staff have which was the first indication of the calls that were made to the gang hotline from my office? Was it a document prepared by a staff member, or was it a printout from Manitoba Telecom Services, or what was it?

Mr. Toews: This is information that my staff is putting together.

Mr. Mackintosh: Further to the written document provided publicly last week on the 9-4-5 numbers being traced, is it the minister's understanding that, in order to know who was calling from a 9-4-5 number, the person retrieving the messages must actually make a conscious effort and push the number five on the telephone?

Mr. Toews: That is not my understanding, but I could well be corrected by information from the department. I have no knowledge of how this particular information would have been retrieved with any accuracy nor to answer that specific question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain why a 9-4-5 number was being used as the gang hotline when it was essentially to be a police phone number and a police operation?

Mr. Toews: Well, I will ask my staff to make a note of that and in fact answer that question to my satisfaction. I can provide the information to the member. When the phone line was set up, it was before my tenure as minister, but I am certainly prepared to answer for the actions of the department prior to that time, and so I will make the appropriate inquiry to see whether or not that information is available.

* (1540)

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell us when he became aware of delays, and significant delays at that, in returning or retrieving messages that were left on the voice mail of the gang hotline?

Mr. Toews: As I have indicated, I will prepare these answers to the extent that I am able to and get back to the member on that.

I think I have made myself fairly clear that I indicated yesterday in Estimates that this is an issue that I would have my staff pull together the relevant paper. But, by doing this, we are simply going around in circles. I will wait until the staff put that background material together. I do not want to speculate as to when that information in fact came to my attention, because I think it is important that there be accuracy in that respect.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister made inquiries to determine whether there was any tracing of any numbers while the police were in control of the operation of this gang line, assuming the minister's information is correct that it was the police's responsibility up until May 10? If there was tracing, what, if any, use was made of the information?

Mr. Toews: I have not made those inquiries of the police.

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister be making those inquiries?

Mr. Toews: I understand that sometime during the course of last month there were discussions with the police. I know very little about the content of those discussions, if anything. I do not know the extent to which I should be asking the police those questions and whether or not, even if I knew, it would be appropriate for me to disclose that because of the issue concerning the sensitivity of the information received.

Mr. Mackintosh: There is concern out there, and I referenced in Question Period yesterday or the day before a concern from a teacher and a student in particular as to what use, if any, may have been made of the tracing capability and any names that may have become known then to authorities. I ask the minister if he will undertake now to make that inquiry to determine how far back the tracing has been done and what, if any, use was made of names, if the tracing was done.

Mr. Toews: Well, as I have indicated, the province took over the responsibility of clearing that line of information on or about May 10, 1999. Prior to that time, the administration and the functioning of that line was in the hands of the police, just in the same way that other lines are in the hands of other outside agencies. So I do not intend to make that inquiry, unless it is somehow relevant to the Estimates of the Department of Justice.

I want to perhaps mention to the Chair that we have to understand that police are independent of government. I know the member, from time to time, for one reason or another, slides over a very important distinction between law enforcement agencies, whether they are creatures or products of municipal governments or whether they are a provincial police force. They are independent of the actions of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice.

I think it may well be instructive to consider the role of the police in these types of functions and indeed in respect of the role of the police in general investigatory matters. The police, under our system of law enforcement, are the investigative agency. They either respond to complaints made to them about alleged breaches of the law or, in fact, initiate investigations of their own accord, whether they come across them or whether they initiate certain investigations as a result of concerns that they may have.

A police officer, in exercising that responsibility, and that does not just mean the investigation of crime, but generally in his activities is an independent law enforcement officer making independent legal judgments. Clearly the chief of police in a particular situation issues policies, directives, and controls generally speaking the conduct of the police officer, but ultimately, even when you look at a specific information that a police officer may swear to, that information is on the individual peace officer's belief. That is, the police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that something happened.

The basis for that reasonable belief, as I have shortened it to state, can come from many sources. It can come from witnesses, it can come from his or her own investigation, it can come from information received from another police officer, but in the final analysis it is that individual police officer who must be prepared to take that oath and say that he or she has reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe that a certain course of events has occurred. So that is the role of the police officer.

Let us just set that aside for a moment. Let us look at the role of the Department of Justice. In recent years, the traditional role of the Attorney General has received added responsibilities. Some jurisdictions still look at the distinction between the role of the Attorney General and the role of the Solicitor General.

The role of the Attorney General is to direct prosecutions in a general way. I am not suggesting that the Attorney General gets involved in the actual prosecution unless he or she takes over a specific case and does that prosecution. It is not something that is traditionally done in Canada anymore. I think it was done more in the past. I believe there still are some Attorneys General who try to prosecute one case or so a year. I think the British Columbia Attorney General may do that, I am not sure, at least appears in court on a particular case.

* (1550)

What the role of the Attorney General is in that context is very different from the role of the Solicitor General, the two roles being basically amalgamated in the Department of Justice. The Solicitor General looks at and governs the conduct of police generally and the administration of the prison system. Those roles in some democratic jurisdictions are very clearly delineated.

Indeed, in Great Britain, I believe the practice still remains that the Attorney General is outside of cabinet, that the Attorney General because of his or her direct influence over prosecutions should not be in cabinet, so that if there are issues involving cabinet, the Attorney General is in an independent position to look at the situation. I think to some extent we still see that not only in Great Britain but in the American federal system of government. The Solicitor General, then, in Great Britain is, in fact, I believe called the Home Secretary and exercises those police powers or jail powers or powers over prisons.

In Canada then, the Minister of Justice, in dealing with these two particular roles, has to be very careful to ensure that, as the Attorney General, there is not interference by his department in the operation of the police in the investigation and uncovering of crime. That is primarily a function of the police. Lately we have also seen brought under the Ministry of Justice more and more programs that traditionally have been orphans, if I could call them that, in the justice system, situations like how to deal with victims in a more effective way.

Generally speaking, in years past, there has not been much consideration in a formal way to victims. They in fact were often left out of the process, and in some respects that is because of the way our justice system developed. The victim was not seen as standing on his or her own right, and to an extent that same philosophy extends to today. But it was always seen that the Crown attorney prosecuting a particular case spoke for the people generally. So that means not only the general public but the victim in particular, and so the voice of the victim was subsumed into that general classification, and indeed the role of the prosecutor in respect of the accused also was important in the context of that particular situation.

I think that prior to 1982, when many of the rights of the accused were by statute or at the whim of–rather than use the word "whim," talk about the changeability of the common law–there was a need to ensure that prosecutors acted independently and fairly towards the accused, so the prosecutor had a very important role to play not only in advancing the state's case, the people's case, but indeed ensuring fairness to a particular accused and also listening to the voice of the victim. That is a very difficult job and often difficult to differentiate and to weigh these various elements of this very important function.

After 1982, with the advent of the Charter of Rights, which is now a constitutional document, and the enshrining of certain rights towards the accused or in favour of the accused, on a constitutional rather than on a policy or statutory basis, the rights of the accused were certainly protected to a greater extent than had ever occurred in Canadian history. There is, for example, the presumption of innocence enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the Chair would be inclined to invoke the rule of relevance here. The question was simply whether the minister would undertake to ask the police if they have been tracing any numbers on the gang hotline over the course of its operation.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: Same point of order. This is absolutely essential; this discussion that we are having right now is absolutely essential. The member laughs. That somehow the explanation of the independence of the prosecutor's authority and police independence–and the member laughs.

Mr. Chair, if he is asking me to do something, I want to explain to him why what he may be asking may well be improper. I know what he does if I do not explain myself absolutely clearly. He will twist and he will turn and he will use weasel words.

So I think it is absolutely essential that on the record my explanation stands as to why what the member is asking me to do has a lot of importance.

I want to point out, on the same point of order, this is a member who stood up–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. You are moving off of the point of order at this time. I think I have heard enough information on the point of order.

The honourable member did not have a point of order, but I would ask members to attempt to be relevant towards the questions that are being brought forward.

* (1600)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude his answer.

Mr. Toews: Thank you. So the prosecutor has this independent role to play, and through the prosecutor, the Attorney General and the Justice minister has an independent role to play. We were talking about the rights of accused and how they are constitutionally enshrined.

What happened was an acceleration of the recognition of the rights of accused in this context that further alienated, I think, the right of the public as a collective and the victim as an individual to be heard. That is something that we have forgotten when we brought in that Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it essentially does not address collective rights or victims. What it does is protect an accused in a proceeding brought against that accused by the state in respect of criminal offences.

So we have seen then the development of separate branches in government to deal specifically with what is clearly, in my opinion, a shortcoming in our legal system. That is the appropriate recognition of the rights of the collective public and the individual rights of the victim. That is why many branches in government have been set up to address what I think is a constitutional shortcoming. That might be something that will be worked out, perhaps not in my lifetime but in someone else's.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, there are some very serious matters of public safety and issues of breaches of confidentiality, not returning calls made to the gang hotline for periods of five months, perhaps more, and questions about what has been done with information taken from the gang hotline, contrary to what was held out to Manitobans.

This minister wants to engage in a filibuster, and I think it is a disgrace. I ask, Mr. Chair, if he would call the minister to order. The question was very specific, that he, as the chief law enforcement officer for the Province of Manitoba, would make inquiries of the police services in respect of the gang hotline. For him to come in here and talk as if this was Robson Hall is, I think, not serving the interests of the public of Manitoba. I ask that the rule of relevance be invoked.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order. The member's statement that he just made indicates the relevance of this discussion, Mr. Chair. He indicated, in his statement, right now, that I was the chief law enforcement officer of the Province of Manitoba.

As I understand it, Mr. Chairperson, and perhaps he wants to correct me on that, I am the chief law officer. That is a very different kettle of fish. That is exactly why I am trying to explain to this member why these functions are so different and why this function that he is asking me to interfere with, that we have to be so careful in addressing. So even his objection indicates the relevance of the comments that I am making.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: I already have the member on his first point of order. Can I conclude with the first one, and then we will move on, if you have a second one.

I would like to bring to the committee's attention, the rule that the honourable member is speaking about, is: "Speeches in a Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion."

I am having difficulty tying the whole thing close to the relevant question that the honourable member asked, so I will ask the minister if he could maybe bring me around to the relevancy during his answering of the question. So the honourable member did have a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude his answer.

Mr. Toews: What I will do, Mr. Chair, because I respect your ruling and your direction, is to summarize the point that I am getting to. But I want to explain how I get to that point, because, as indicated in the member's point of order, he did not understand that very basic role of the Attorney General, Solicitor General, the police. What I am trying to stress, and you know, it may be tedious, it may be boring, but what I am trying to bring home is the independence of all elements of the system, the independence of the police, the independence of legal aid, the independence of the prosecutors, the independence of the courts, the independence of the defence bars, and the importance of the success of the entire system of this independence. Because what in fact the member is suggesting is that somehow government has control over the police, and maybe as a socialist he does not have a problem with government directly controlling police, but where I come from, state control of police is a totalitarian state. That may not frighten him, but that does frighten me.

I have a healthy respect for the police. I want to ensure that police get the respect that they are entitled to, and I know that our communities, one after another, talk with pride about their police forces, whether it is the Winnipeg city police, whether it is the Winkler town police or whether it is Morden, whether it is Rivers, whether it is the Dakota Ojibway Police Service, whether it is the RCMP that serves in a municipal function or a provincial function. These are independent law enforcement agencies.

I had started off my answer with the emphasis about this independence of the police officers to act, and the member opposite somehow infers that I should walk in with jackboots and demand answers from the police in a totally arbitrary fashion. Well, I will not do that, because of some of the things that I wanted to explain but which the member has no patience to listen to. He thinks it is a joke; he thinks it is a filibuster. He does not understand the basic elements of our justice system, and that is why I have had to spend this time going through this.

An Honourable Member: You arrogant fool.

Mr. Toews: The member states all types of things from across the way. That is his right to do, and I am not going to call him, or ask the Chair to call him to order, but what I can indicate and what I said before: I will make investigations of my staff, the information will be brought forward, and if there is information in that respect that I can share with him, not because it is a whim on my part or not, but there are issues of law, of independence, of propriety, that the member somehow wants me to ignore. So that is the answer.

Mr. Mackintosh: The condescending remarks of the minister are not worthy of a Justice minister anywhere. The question was: will he ask questions of the police to assure Manitobans of the confidentiality of that gang line? The gang line, I might remind the minister, is a government program promoted, spun out by the provincial government. This government takes political credit for that program. It is going to darn well take political responsibility when they are found out. He has an obligation to the people of Manitoba, particularly to those who have called that line and are now very concerned. For him to go on with this–exactly, a filibuster–is very disappointing, and to speak in such condescending and arrogant terms I do not think serves justice in the province.

* (1610)

I understand from the minister that he will not be making any inquiries to determine what if any tracing has taken place over the history of this line, and I think Manitobans should be aware of that. That is his conclusion. He will not do that. If the minister wants to respond to that, so be it. If he wants to change his mind now, he can put it on the record.

Mr. Toews: I think my statements indicated what my intentions are in this matter. Again, this is the kind of thing the member constantly does. He stated things in a way that I certainly never intended, and I think the objective observer would realize were never intended that way. He somehow, in an arrogant way, summarizes very incorrectly what in fact he thought I said. This is nothing new from the member for St. Johns. He does it on a continuous basis.

In a very recent case, he accused our prosecutors of dealing away a case to the lowest possible charge of dangerous driving, and he, without regard to the work that was done in that particular case–

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Mr. Chair. There will be some questions on that particular case to the minister, and perhaps he will want to answer those questions at that time.

The question now is with regard to the gang hotline. I know the minister wants to avoid at all costs answering these questions. He has avoided answering almost every question on that. But I ask again, Mr. Chair, that you ask the minister to contain his remarks and observe the rule of relevance. That is how this Legislature works is, I think, with some good will, the observance of the rules, and that is how we can get information on the record.

But the question was not about the McEvoy case. It was about the gang hotline and assuring Manitobans about the tracing that was uncovered with respect to that line.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, this is a member who personally attacked me right now, made comments that were inaccurate on the record, and I was responding to them. Then he has the arrogance to suggest I should not be able to respond to the matters that he has put onto the record. Mr. Chair, I am entitled to respond to the accusations that he has made and the inaccurate summaries that he has made of my answer, and this is something he does consistently. I was simply illustrating that tendency of the member to do that.

Mr. Chairperson: I have already ruled on the case of relevancy at a previous point of order. Relevancy is an issue that we have to pay very close attention to when we get into the line-by-line jurisdiction of any department. We have allowed some variation of that for the past 180 or so hours, but I must remind members that we must choose our words very carefully or we can enter into debate that might not be as constructive as we would like it to be.

I am not going to say that either member is guilty of this offence, but the terminologies that are being used at this time are starting to stretch pretty close to the mark. I would ask the members of the Chamber if they could please choose their words very carefully. Let us deal with the points that are before us at this time and attempt to stick to the issues on the line that we were on. That will help the decorum to a great extent at this time.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns, with his question. Oh, was the honourable minister not finished? The honourable minister, to conclude his answer. I am sorry.

Mr. Toews: As I was explaining, I have undertaken to do what I can in terms of the production of information. What I wanted to leave on the record, in no uncertain terms, is that because of the independence of various elements of our justice system, there is some information that because of the independence of the police, I should not be accessing. So I will make the return of information here on Monday in respect of the involvement of my department. I understand that there are other discussions that are going on or have gone on with the police and perhaps others generally in respect of the operation and the future of this particular phone line. I am getting that information.

I do not know how many times today I have indicated that I would get information on Monday. This was not a matter of attempting to delay the process. The member knew that I was prepared to get that information for Monday. That is the discussion we had yesterday. He knows that. So now he is attempting to suggest that there will be an improper suppression of information. I reject that allegation.

Mr. Mackintosh: We will return to this on Monday then. I have some concerns that the minister is aware of around the Baird case. It was a bail decision of Judge Newcombe. In Question Period on two occasions, I asked the minister to look at that case. There is a publication ban on that matter. The matter is before the courts and, of course, our discussion cannot get into the guilt or innocence of the particular accused.

What is of concern are comments that were made and are in the transcript. I drew the attention of the minister to that transcript. When I last asked the minister if he had read the transcript, he had said he had not, and I regret that. I ask if the minister now has read the transcript or been briefed on it. Again, I do not think it is necessary to get into the words there in the transcript. But has he looked at that and considered the comments particularly of Judge Newcombe?

Mr. Toews: You know, this matter is under a publication ban. What this member is trying to do is deliberately trying to get me to go into an area where he knows the court has made prohibitions. This is typical of the member.

Mr. Mackintosh: I can see where this minister is not going to serve the interests of justice here. This is a very serious issue. I can tell by his response that he has not briefed himself on what is in that transcript. I am not asking for any revelation of any information. I asked the minister whether he has reviewed the transcript. Would he answer that? He can do that in a yes or no. But for him to impute that motive, I think, is very unfortunate.

There is an overriding public issue here regarding the policy of domestic violence, about judges. I ask that he look at this and consider this case, particularly in the light of the Lavoie tragedy. Surely he understands that overriding public interest and what we as legislators have an obligation to consider. I do not see this to be a partisan matter. This is a matter of concern about a judicial attitude. It has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of an individual. We do not have to discuss the wording or any details or information. I simply ask: has he now reviewed that transcript?

* (1620)

Mr. Chairperson: I do not think I need any information on this point of order. After listening to the honourable member for St. Johns on his point of order, I heard him bring forward a number of issues: relevancy, imputing motive. One thing he did not do is refer to any specific rule which the minister was deferring from. Let me remind members, on a point of order, when it is being raised it should be because we were distracting from the rules, not just to bring forward another question or interrupt the ongoing proceedings.

The honourable minister, to continue his answer from the previous question.

Mr. Toews: This is a member who stood on the steps of the Legislature of Manitoba in respect of a particular case and gave information to the media in respect of a particular arrest, and it was not this case, and he gave information about a criminal background when he knew this matter was going before the courts, and he knew what he was doing was improper and yet he did it. I suggest he did it–

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Before the honourable member goes on his point of order, we are starting to drift. Rule 481(e) is a rule on imputing motive. I would ask the members to choose their words very carefully during committee. We are attempting to maintain a certain decorum.

You will have to take your seat, Mr. Minister. In committee you still have to be in your seat, Mr. Minister. So that is where we are at at this point.

Mr. Chairperson: I do have to come to the member on–do you still want to come up on a point of order, or am I going to go to the minister?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): It is not on a point of order, Mr. Chair. I know that we are probably about halfway through the afternoon. I know in the interests of everyone's general comfort, I was wondering if, not to really take a recess, but just if we could sit in abeyance for five to six minutes or so, allow members to get a cup of coffee and, yes, I think in the interests of ensuring that the Chair has a bladder break.

Mr. Chairperson: We will take five. Thank you.

________

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order. Where was I? He was finishing something?

Mr. Toews: Well, maybe I can shorten the answer. The member has not put forward any specific concern. He wants me to go through an entire transcript and now wants me to guess what a particular member of the judiciary said. If he has a problem with it, there of course is a very quick procedure. I will table this. This is a pamphlet put out by Manitoba Justice dealing with the Provincial Court of Manitoba Judicial Conduct: What to do if you have a complaint. They have a little quote here from Socrates: "Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially."

What it says here in very clear terms: "On occasion, you may have a problem with the conduct of a Provincial Court Judge. If you are unhappy with the judge's conduct then you can launch a formal complaint under The Provincial Court Act. If you are unhappy with the judge's decision in court then you should consult with your lawyer to see what other legal options should be explored."

I do not know what the statements he is referring to are, but perhaps I can leave this folder with him and he can make his own decision on that.

Mr. Chairperson: Is the minister tabling that or just passing it over to the member?

Mr. Toews: Well, I can either table it or pass it over to whoever wants to see it.

Mr. Chairperson: We will just pass it over.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I am disappointed in that response because this is a matter I think that we have a responsibility to deal with. I believe I gave the minister the page number where I had concerns. Whether or not there is a basis for a complaint may well be under consideration, but the matter and the reason I raise it is not just because of a particular judge.

It is a matter of public policy and recommendations from the Lavoie report, specifically about the relocation of bail hearings into Family Violence Court and, second of all, the recommendation that there be a bail risk assessment process for Manitoba. Those are political issues that the minister and I have responsibilities to deal with.

Mr. Toews: Actually, just a point of clarification, I am just wondering whether the member is speaking for himself when he says for me in terms of what he considers my responsibility to be. I think that just to clarify, I trust, that he is speaking about what he sees his view as being or sees my role as being rather than I agreeing with that particular matter.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister was correct in his statement. It was not a point of order. He was seeking clarification on the question, but the member had not posed his question as of yet.

* (1640)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I think I know what the minister is talking about. He is specifically referring to the discussions that have been between us about moving domestic violence bail cases to Family Violence Court and a position taken by the administration and the minister that because there was an indication from judges that they had concerns about that, the matter had been dealt with and would not be pursued. I am just asking if the minister has had any meetings with the Chief Judge on the issue of relocation of domestic violence bail cases to Family Violence Court.

Mr. Toews: I appreciate the member's question. The recommendation that was made by Mr. Justice Schulman in the Lavoie report was to the effect, and I do not have the exact recommendation here; perhaps my staff can get that recommendation for me, but as I understand it, it was recommendation No. 18. That said that the family violence court unit should include a court to hear the applications for judicial interim release of offenders charged with domestic violence offences.

The implementation that the department took was as a result of a discussion with the court. My understanding is that when Justice Schulman's recommendation was taken to the Provincial Court, the response of the Provincial Court was that they did not feel it was necessary to have a separate court for domestic violence bail applications.

In order to at least remain true to the recommendation made by Justice Schulman, given that it is ultimately up to the court to determine how it will conduct proceedings and the scheduling of proceedings and where various accused will go, what we did, and I believe with the concurrence of the Chief Judge, is have in fact two prosecutors in our bail courts. One of those prosecutors deals with regular bail matters. The other prosecutor, in the same courtroom, deals with the domestic violence bail applications.

The member's point, I think, is that there should be perhaps a separate court, or there should be a separate judge and a separate unit of the court dealing with domestic violence bail matters. I know that we have had some success in dealing with separate courts for separate issues.

In Queen's Bench, for example, we have, of course, an entire separate division of the Court of Queen's Bench, which is the family division of the Court of Queen's Bench as opposed to the general division. I think the member is perhaps suggesting something like that, perhaps not quite as formally differentiated, but in fact done at least on an informal basis. The problem is that the court does not consider that necessary and did not agree with the recommendation of Justice Schulman so we attempted to do as much as we could in respect of the area that we controlled.

For that reason, Family Violence Crown attorneys are handling applications for bail in cases of domestic violence in Winnipeg, although all of those bail applications, domestic and nondomestic bail applications, appear on the same docket.

Mr. Mackintosh: My question was, has the minister met with the Chief Judge on the issue, though, of moving domestic violence bail cases into Family Violence Court?

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, members of my department have raised that with the Chief Judge, and the response of the Chief Judge was that, with the exception of one judge, the court was unanimously opposed to that proposal.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister then consider that is conclusive, that that is as far as the matter goes?

Mr. Toews: Ultimately, I have to respect the independence of the court. The court has indicated, for reasons that it considers appropriate and sufficient, that we should not be proceeding in that direction. The constitutional or administrative authority does not lie with me. I think that, given that the court has made this particular decision, we will have to respect the decision, but there are various things that we can do over the course of the administration of the courts.

For example, if we look at Recommendation No. 19, which says Provincial Court judges–and this is out of Lavoie–who hear cases where domestic violence could be an issue, should attend seminars or conferences related to or associated with domestic violence. Now, I as the Attorney General or Minister of Justice cannot order a judge to attend this. In fact, what the recommendation says they should, they ought to, do that, so the word is "should."

What, in fact, the implementation committee has advised is that there have been, or will be, educational seminars devoted to domestic violence issues. Judges are also encouraged to attend other relevant seminars and conferences, and funds have been made available to facilitate their attendance. In fact, the annual judicial training budget has been increased by $15,000, I believe. We can get into the details of the Estimates later, but I believe an amount has been brought forward to facilitate greater training in the area of domestic violence. Also, very importantly, a role that people often forget is the role of magistrates, many of them who are laypersons.

Increased funds have also been made available to facilitate the training of magistrates in the area of domestic violence. Our Crown attorneys, similarly, particularly those in rural areas or who do circuits in rural areas, we acknowledge, should be trained in issues related to domestic violence, and that indeed is a recommendation, again made by Mr. Justice Schulman. As I understand it, the annual Crown attorneys conference, I think as late as last year, in December of last year, in fact, included presentations on domestic violence.

* (1650)

Now I know that a further session in April of 1999 was scheduled to address the issues of prosecuting domestic violence matters and involving community-based groups in that presentation, and I understand from the assistant deputy minister that, in fact, that has been done. The April seminar, I understand, does not relate directly to domestic violence, but may well relate to helpful prosecutorial information, and that the September 1999 session will relate to information on successfully prosecuting domestic violence cases.

The recommendation also that Crown attorneys should develop strategies to allow more domestic violence cases to proceed to trial without the victim's participation or co-operation was also something that was mentioned. It is very difficult to take a case to trial where the victim is not there. One of the few exceptions to that is usually murder cases, of course, where the victim is deceased. Usually the courts insist upon the personal attendance of a victim to give evidence where that evidence is relevant and necessary for the prosecution and appropriate defence cross-examination.

I can indicate that the Prosecutions Division of Manitoba Justice has provided the City of Winnipeg Police with five video cameras to be used in a pilot project to videotape statements in cases of domestic assaults with serious violence or where there is a history of violence between the parties. The use of these statements will enhance the ability to prosecute a case when the complainant becomes an unwilling witness.

Again, that is not exactly the kind of situation that we want, because it is often very important to have the witness there, but as a result of some rulings made by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called KGB, there has been greater latitude allowed to Crown attorneys to proceed to rely on previous out-of-court statements made by witnesses. I see that as a very positive development, especially in the very difficult situation of domestic violence.

So what we have tried to do then is ensure that wherever possible we could follow the recommendations of Mr. Justice Schulman. When circumstances beyond our control did not allow us to do that, we tried to find perhaps an acceptable alternative, perhaps not acceptable to everyone, but acceptable in the sense that the spirit and intent of the recommendations are met. One of the recommendations that was also made, which I think is a very difficult one in this context, and not because staff members have not been mindful in addressing the possibility of this implementation, but that relates to risk assessment reports, where accused people make an application for judicial interim release.

The problem, of course, with risk assessment reports where someone has not yet been convicted is that there is no obligation upon them to co-operate with authorities in doing that. That person is presumed innocent. Certainly in the context of a convicted offender, where they are within the context of our correctional institution, then the risk assessments have been very helpful in determining whether or not someone is eligible for release. So those are some of the things that we have done.

I know that the departmental staff have had conversations or communications with the court in respect of the separation of the Domestic Violence Court from the regular bail court. But to this date the judges, as is their right, have indicated that that is not an appropriate proposal.

So in fact what we have here is not so much a dispute between my department on one hand and the judges on the other, but rather we have a dispute here between judges in terms of what the appropriate policy is, a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, acting in the role of commissioner, making the recommendation that this should occur and the overwhelming majority of Provincial Court judges indicating that this is not an appropriate recommendation. Again, some independence must be recognized. What I can say is that we will continue to work with the court to ensure that public safety is ultimately the goal of all of our various independent participants in the justice system.

Mr. Mackintosh: I was able to obtain a copy of the memo from the Chief Judge, which had outlined the concerns of the judges with regard to the proposal of Mr. Justice Schulman in moving the bail matters into a family violence court, and in there I found something rather strange. It was said that some of the judges, and perhaps the majority of them, thought that a separate docket for domestic violence bail cases would be confusing. Which leads me to this question: other than the docket list and the specialized cadre of prosecutors that are assigned to the Family Violence Court, what comprises a family violence court? In particular, is there any specialized or particular cadre of judges?

Mr. Toews: The utilization of judges for court and particular judges in those courts are the exclusive jurisdiction of the court to make that determination, however they make that determination. I note, with some interest, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the constitutional necessity for an independent tribunal to make recommendations to the Legislature on pay and other benefits for judges.

They indicate that the Chief Judge is not without limitless authority; that is, the Chief Judge, in terms of making these determinations, is first among equals. So I do not really know then how the Chief Judge makes those particular decisions. I assume that she does have some administrative control over scheduling of judges in courts. All I can offer at this time is that we are prepared to continue to work with the court in terms of ensuring that family violence is limited and that appropriate resources are brought to bear in respect of these situations in the court.

* (1700)

Because of the member's raising some of the other issues of resources in this particular unit, I think it is also important to look at the recommendations in the Lavoie report and the actions that have been taken. There was a Women's Advocacy Program working group that made a report in respect of this particular issue as well. They had a very significant contribution, and I want to thank those community members for their participation. The working group consisted of 11 members, six from community agencies, four government staff, and the chairperson of the implementation committee.

The committee members represented a women's shelter, a women's resource centre, a nonresidential service agency and a service consumer, as well as the Winnipeg Police Service and the RCMP. Two of the community members represented services outside of Winnipeg, and one member represented the First Nations community. The four government members represented the Women's Advocacy Program, the Crown attorneys' Family Violence unit and the Justice department's Victim Services program.

They dealt with a number of recommendations, and I want to deal with some of these in answer to the question of the member. Recommendation No. 38 of Mr. Justice Schulman indicated that the Women's Advocacy Program should assign priority to cases of domestic violence based on its estimation of the risk of further violence, and in fact make a more aggressive effort to contact victims of domestic violence they believe to be at greater risk. So what in fact has happened as a result of that particular recommendation is that, generally speaking, the Women's Advocacy worker in Winnipeg now attends domestic violence bail court every morning to provide service to women in high-risk situations.

In Brandon, the counsellor currently telephones all women victimized by domestic violence within a very short period of time of notification, and also a priority case flag is added to the existing database to indicate situations considered risky by counsellors. In addition, the police notification form is currently being revised in consultation with the Winnipeg police. The new form will provide even more information to assess the risk, and the timelines that were placed on this and subject to any corrections that departmental officials might be able to provide me with is that in December of 1998, a counsellor began telephoning women within that very short period of hours of police notification of a domestic violence incident.

If a phone number is not available, a brief letter is mailed immediately asking the victim to call a counsellor. I understand, as well, a revised police notification form was implemented on January 1, 1999. The new form provides more information to assess risks which include a brief description of incident, background, factors and additional pertinent information.

In Winnipeg, a counsellor now attends intake court weekly and trial court as requested by victims, in addition to other court support services. Another recommendation is in respect of recommendation No. 40, which says a copy of the relevant court assistance report should be provided to the Women's Advocacy Program along with the victim notification form. I understand that there were some concerns in that respect, and I think my information is that in lieu of a police report, the victim notification forms were revised to include a brief description of the incident, specific background factors and additional pertinent information such as mental health issues, pregnancy and drugs and alcohol abuse. The police indeed consider the Women's Advocacy victim notification forms to be a Winnipeg Police Service report. Here we see, very interestingly, the police adapting their process in order to accommodate these particular requests.

The Women's Advocacy Program also makes sure that it reviews the programming on an ongoing basis in order to enhance service to women. To date, I am advised service is provided in a more timely fashion, with appointments being offered immediately in emergency situations. There is a little greater delay in nonemergency cases. Appointments, I understand, can be provided in a very short period of time, but, however, as stated earlier, women are telephoned within 48 hours of notification from the police.

What is in fact happening as a result of the Lavoie implementation and the Family Violence unit involvement, there is a more comprehensive service available with women in cross-charging situations where they are offered counselling for safety planning. Women are also offered services when their partner breaches his probation conditions. I assume that if the person that has been abused is the male, when the female makes those breaches, the same matter is dealt with slightly differently, but certainly we look at providing support.

There are a number of other matters, but what I have been letting the member know is in fact some of the programs and services being offered by the Family Violence unit. I think to the credit of both members of the department as well as members of the public generally who worked so hard in implementing this report, I think it is a very good credit or a very good sign to see the public and professional staff working together in this way.

Mr. Mackintosh: Just returning to my question, is it the minister's understanding that there are specialized or a core group of judges who specifically deal with domestic violence matters and Family Violence Court, or are the judges who hear cases in Family Violence Court, as it is called, merely any one of the judges of the Provincial Court?

Mr. Toews: Perhaps I could just reiterate my answer in a very quick, short way. The Chief Judge is responsible for the assignment of judges, the training of judges, and for ensuring that there are appropriate courses being offered as she or the court considers fit. I know that there is no similar division in the Provincial Court as we find in the Court of Queen's Bench, where there is a separate court dealing with family matters.

* (1710)

I cannot offer any more information than that. As indicated, our department continues to work with the court to ensure that appropriate communications occur and the best interests of the public, whom we all ultimately serve, is being met.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister then aware as to how the Chief Judge assigns judges to hear domestic violence cases in Provincial Court?

Mr. Toews: No, I am not aware.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister have concerns if family violence matters were being heard by judges who are not any special cadre or not specialized to deal with family violence issues?

Mr. Toews: If the member is making an allegation against any particular judge here today, he should say so. There is, as I indicated earlier, a code of judicial conduct or at least standards by which judges are measured, and a complaint of misconduct or indeed even incompetence, if that is what the member is suggesting, could be heard by the appropriate panel.

Of course, Mr. Chair, I am always concerned that the administration of justice is carried out. I understand that judges play a very crucial role in our justice system using their experience and the evidence presented to them to weigh complex cases and make decisions. Those complex decisions involved matters not only with domestic violence, they involved matters of youth court and crimes in youth court, and obviously there are different considerations, legal and perhaps even social, in terms of making decisions in that context.

In many respects, judges are called upon to use their experience, and maybe just anecdotally, I can relate to the member that sometimes it is not necessarily the specific legal experience that makes a person a good judge in an area.

I know that there have been cases of judges who have been appointed to the Provincial Court where they hear primarily criminal cases, who do not have any criminal experience in their years in the bar or very little experience. They may have litigation experience, but they may have engaged in commercial activities. That does not disqualify them from being a judge nor does that necessarily mean they will make a bad decision in areas where they do not have the specific years of experience.

I think though that we recognize that there is an obligation to ensure that everyone makes appropriate efforts to ensure their level of understanding of particular issues is appropriate, and if for one reason or another it is not either personally seek that level of information, because I know as a lawyer when I was hired in the Constitutional Law branch, I had very little experience in constitutional matters. It was incumbent on me then as a professional person to develop that expertise.

When I left the practice of law with the government, which occurred in 1991, and went to the private industry, a large insurance corporation with headquarters here in Winnipeg, I was not familiar with insurance law, and yet I was called upon to deal with insurance cases on a regular basis. I am not equating insurance law with domestic violence law and the intricacies of that, but I am saying that if someone can make the switch from constitutional law to insurance law, it is not necessarily the prior training that one has received that will determine whether or not he or she will make a good judge or a good lawyer.

I think our bar, generally speaking, has shied away from the whole idea that lawyers should have particular designations. I know that has been a matter of controversy in the field of the practice of law. But, as the member knows, once you are called to practise law, you can practise law as a fully qualified lawyer. You could even venture into areas where you have no expertise, but ultimately you, as a lawyer, are accountable to the public, to the Law Society and indeed to other instruments of government to make sure that you do not abuse the particular situation.

In the case of a Provincial Court judge, approximately 95 percent of the criminal cases in Manitoba are heard by Provincial Court judges. So even in a situation where they have little or no experience in criminal law, and that is I think increasingly rare as you go into the Provincial Court because of some of the complexities in criminal law that may not have been there a number of years ago, in a very short period of time you acquire knowledge and skills that assist you in making your decisions. I think that, just speaking anecdotally, there is some period of integration into the court system. There is a role for the Chief Judge to play, I assume, in ensuring that you are appropriately able to take on bigger and more difficult tasks as your experience grows.

I know that judges, for example, go to judges school, and I have heard it referred to as other things, but I do not want to get into that. I think it is a bit of a joke among some of the judges when they refer to that school. As silly as it may seem to have to learn some of these things, I think it is always useful to refresh one's memory about certain things. We assume we know things, and then really, when we get into those classes, any kinds of classes as lawyers or as others, we find out there are probably a lot of things that we have forgotten. So I know that within the Provincial Court system itself, they similarly have training programs, seminars and educational opportunities to ensure that they are sensitive to the concerns addressed or the concerns that arise before them, the cases that arise before them, and that they can deal with these very important cases.

* (1720)

As Socrates said, as quoted here in this Judicial Conduct pamphlet: their obligation is 'to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.' That does not mean to say, though, that ongoing education is not warranted. I think all of the judges recognize that, and while they may not agree with the recommendation of Justice Schulman, I think I think their conduct and their efforts are always with a view to public service in mind, and if on occasion a judge does not meet the standards that not only society but his or her peers expect, there is a mechanism whereby a formal complaint can be lodged under The Provincial Court Act. Misconduct by a Provincial Court judge could be neglect of duty, inability or incapacity of that judge to perform his or her duties, essentially conduct unbecoming, and some of these things are pretty broad and require interpretation.

The judicial inquiry board, which is the second step after referral of the complaint to the Chief Judge, is made up of three people–a lawyer, a judge from a Court of Queen's Bench position and a person who is not a lawyer or a judge. Then, if there is a basis for a referral of the complaint or a charge of misconduct, the board that lays that charge, it is then brought before the Manitoba Judicial Council, and that is a six-member council made up of three judges, the president of the Law Society and two people who are not lawyers or judges. Usually the council will hold a public hearing to hear the complaint.

We have had some experience in this province with those hearings, and I think they have been very beneficial to the administration of justice. The council has the jurisdiction upon a finding of misconduct to impose a number of penalties, including suspension or indeed a recommendation that a judge be retired if the misconduct was due to the judge's inability to perform his or her duties. So, while the member and I may disagree with the Provincial Court's position that this particular recommendation not be followed in the way that Justice Schulman recommended it. There is still an ongoing duty on the part of the judges to ensure that they meet the standards demanded of them.

We are very happy that a former senior Crown attorney, now a provincial judge, has been the chair of the education committee of the Provincial Court and now I believe is even a president of the association of the judges, and that is His Honour Judge John Guy. So I think that people of the quality of Judge Guy–I have had occasion to read some of his judgments; very impressed by his reasoning, his sensitivity, his dedication to public service as a judge. These are the people who are there, who are sensitive to prosecutions, who are sensitive to domestic violence issues, and sometimes we may disagree with a particular judgment. There are remedies, very formal remedies. Mr. Chairman, No. 1, an appeal; No. 2, the laying of a particular complaint; and thirdly, the right of all public members, all citizens, to engage in a debate about what should be happening in respect of a certain situation even in the context of the courts. I think over the last number of years I have seen a welcoming by the courts of their role as an important public institution to participate in an appropriate way in the discussion about the future of the courts, the types of programs they should be offering and the way in which to achieve certain policy goals within the context of their judicial functions.

While the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and I may, from time to time, disagree with what the courts are doing, and we may express that in the context of our democratic institutions and our democratic rights, I think we have to be very careful that we do not override a very important institution, that we respect that institution and that we continue to work with it. That does not mean we cannot aggressively comment and challenge matters, because without that aggressive comment and challenge things cannot be changed in some cases. I think both the judiciary and the members in the House recognize that healthy interaction produces I think positive results for our community.

So, if the member has a particular concern about the way things are being done in the courts, he has a forum here. It is not simply a matter for the Minister of Justice to stand up and express his concerns or his praise for the courts, but the member has a democratic right, indeed I would suggest a democratic obligation, to let people know what he believes should be done in a particular situation. And indeed, if some of those ideas are appropriate and consistent with the policy goals of this government, there is no reason why this government will not consider seriously his suggestions.

* (1730)

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister be satisfied if the judges hearing domestic violence cases were any of the judges of the Provincial Court and were simply assigned on a rotation basis from the entire list of Provincial Court judges?

Mr. Toews: My position is as set out in the recommendations of Justice Schulman. That is what I think should have occurred, and the court has its own opinion, so we work together to find common ground, and I believe that is in fact what happens over a period of years. I have not heard an argument that would convince me that Recommendation 18 should not be implemented in the way that has been recommended. I say that with always understanding that any recommendation has to be, when implemented, mindful of reality.

But I, on this particular matter, would probably agree with Mr. Justice Schulman. The fact that I do not necessarily agree with the manner in which the court has implemented it does not mean that we will not continue to work to ensure that the spirit and intent of that recommendation is not met in every respect.

Mr. Mackintosh: With regard to the construction of the courthouse on Chevrier Boulevard, can the minister tell the committee what the total cost is as known now or anticipated, just in relation to the physical plan itself?

Mr. Toews: I will get that information. I do not have that with me here, but I recall–these numbers will be subject to confirmation–that the initial purchase was $1.5 million of the property and building, somewhere in that vicinity, and the original estimate of the changes necessary was another $1.6 million. I believe that there were some additional changes made that increased that by about $300,000 or $400,000, somewhere in that range. If that gives the member any satisfaction, I think that is an accurate extent of the costs. I believe that may well come under Government Services in any event. So I would suggest that the member seek that information from Government Services if I am not able to give him any more detailed information than that.

Mr. Mackintosh: In terms of the staff years needed for the trial itself, I notice from the Estimates that there were $94,000 in Prosecutions and $193,300 in Legal Aid. I am wondering if the minister can confirm what the total anticipated human resource costs will be, directly to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Toews: I will have those figures available for the member on Monday.

Mr. Mackintosh: What is the status of discussions with the federal government in terms of cost-sharing of both the plant costs and the human resource costs of this trial, the courthouse?

Mr. Toews: I met with the federal Minister of Justice directly on this particular issue. I am quite pleased generally with our discussions on a number of issues, including this issue.

Having said that, she did not give me any specific assurances of the fact that the federal government would meet any of these obligations that, as a result of this federal law, and as a result of an independent police investigation, now the province is saddled with the financial responsibility of prosecuting this case, and that is the way it has been in our system. I explained to her, I think, clearly–my deputy was there and one of my assistants was there–about the particular situation that Manitoba finds itself in as a result of the passing of this law. I want to emphasize, as I did to her, that I support that particular law but that the cost of the infrastructure and cost of the personnel necessary then to carry out that law in terms of the prosecution was not something that was foreseen by the federal government nor understood by the federal government when that law was brought into effect.

I think that is a fair appraisal of what in fact her comments were. I do not want to get too deeply into those, because I think she showed a genuine understanding of the situation that Manitoba was in. She left me with the impression that she would seriously consider requests that we had made in order to defend the constitutionality of this particular law because it is a federal law and also to assist in some way. Again, the particulars of the assistance were not spelled out, but I have to say that I am satisfied that she understood the nature of the situation that we were facing, why we found ourselves in this situation, and why we felt that the federal government had a measure of responsibility here to carry out this entire project in co-operation with the provincial government.

I would also note, for the member's information, that this is not simply a provincial prosecution; it is a federal prosecution involving federal prosecutors as well. So issues like that were also discussed. So even though provincial estimates of cost are reflected in our Estimates, that does not reflect some of the input that the federal government is making in terms of its personnel. The other issue, of course, is the police and the cost of policing and other aspects that we detailed to some extent to her and to a much greater extent by my deputy to her deputy. This discussion has taken place from time to time.

* (1740)

Mr. Mackintosh: Did the federal government indicate any timelines as to when she would get back to the minister subsequent to his request?

Mr. Toews: I know that she understands the urgency of the situation. The courthouse in effect has been turned over to the Department of Justice as of May 20, I believe. I had an opportunity to tour the courthouse the beginning of this week, I believe it was. Sometimes days meld into each other, but I believe it was this Monday morning that I had quite an extensive tour of the courthouse and partly in response to my own curiosity to see how far the courthouse had come from when I first saw it. I must say it is a truly, truly remarkable job that has been done in a very short period of time. Also, it was timely in the sense that there were certain concerns expressed in the media about the particular court house, and I wanted to see for myself the veracity of these complaints. I had a very extensive tour, a very informative tour. What impressed me more than the building itself was the incredible co-operation and consultation that has taken place between members of my department, whether it is in the sheriff's department or Courts or Prosecutions, and members of the federal department, members of the judiciary and also very importantly, members of the defence bar. These were not decisions unilaterally made by Government Services, but they were done in very close co-operation between interested parties who, of course, have a vested interest in ensuring the success of the process that this infrastructure will house.

Mr. Mackintosh: I would like to have a tour of that facility myself. I am just asking the minister whom I should contact to make that kind of arrangement.

Mr. Toews: Well, I was going to offer in fact that the member have a tour, and since he asked, I will try to do what I can in terms of arranging that tour. The deputy will contact the appropriate officials to make that happen over the next very short while. One of the concerns that I do have to express is that it needs to be done with a minimum of publicity. We do not want photographers in there. There are some issues related to security, and I think that members of my department will explain the terms of touring this facility. But I know that the member understands issues like that. He has toured jail facilities in this province and I think will exercise the appropriate caution and also respect the wishes of departmental officials who do not always necessarily speak only for themselves but may well speak for the broader picture of the conduct of a trial and concerns that defence bar or the judiciary might raise.

Mr. Mackintosh: What earlier discussions took place between the province and the federal government with regard to the cost of this trial and the infrastructure? Was the meeting with the federal Justice minister the first or was it a combination of a series of discussions back and forth?

Mr. Toews: I think I can answer that just relying on some of the information received here by the deputy, received from the deputy to me. The urgency of the situation presented itself, I think, late last year as a result of certain police actions, and I believe I wrote the Justice minister either in December or early this year to request a meeting because we were going to be in Calgary together at a particular Alberta Justice summit, as I recall the summit. I know that the federal Justice minister was able to attend only a very short portion of that Justice summit, but I was unable to raise the issue in any detail with her. I may have made a passing comment that we should get together or we need to look at that issue. But I would say that, prior to my writing to express the concern, or at about that same time, the deputy was already consulting with his counterpart in the federal Department of Justice.

So the discussion from an official's level occurred almost immediately. The discussion in terms of the ministerial level–other than writing letters, the first real opportunity that I have had to discuss this issue with the minister face to face was just in the past week or so. I know there have been meetings throughout this year on this particular issue, so it is not that the minister is unaware of our requests. Therefore, I guess it is not surprising that she was very well briefed and very well informed and I thought gave me a very sympathetic hearing when I went to Ottawa in order to seek a financial partnership, in addition to the legal and procedural partnership that we have in respect of this particular issue.

The federal Minister of Justice did not give me a timeline as to when she would be in a position to get back to us on all of the issues that we had raised, but I am encouraged that my deputy who met, I believe, on the same day with the federal deputy, as well–independent of me–also raised this issue. So I think we are doing everything possible to ensure that the Government of Canada understands our situation and that the Government of Canada has all the information necessary in order to provide it with a basis to give us a positive response.

* (1750)

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister will recall a letter that I wrote to him asking if there could be a consideration of an expedited reference to either a court of first instance or an appellate court on the validity, the constitutional validity of the new legislation that was being relied on for this trial. In the response, there was a statement that it was decided that that was not the decision of the Prosecutions branch.

So I am just wondering now if the minister can tell us what the reasons were for rejecting that approach. I will just put on the record, the reason that I suggested that was mainly that if this section was impugned, there would be a huge cost of the infrastructure and human resources going into a very lengthy trial that would be for nought, let alone the reputation of justice that is at stake.

I am wondering if the minister then can outline what the considerations were of the Prosecutions branch. I am not saying they were right or they are wrong. I do not know, but I would like an explanation as to why that idea was rejected.

Mr. Toews: Yes, I am just conferring with some of my staff. There are a number of reasons why this matter was proceeded with in this fashion, some of which I understand given that I have had some background in constitutional law. The concern that has always been raised by courts is the consideration of legislation in a factual vacuum. There has always been a reluctance to deal with legislation, and from a government point of view, speaking as a former lawyer in those areas, you do not want necessarily a case to proceed in a factual vacuum because then all kinds of fanciful scenarios can be painted which do not really relate to the specific case.

And so, from a government point of view, the defence of legislation in a factual vacuum creates certain difficulties which may then result in impugning the legislation. That was always, personally speaking–and I think some of that thought was certainly borne in mind by prosecutors–my position. Now, having said that, there were cases that we did proceed by way of reference, reference re Section 194.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with communication for the purposes of prostitution was a reference that proceeded in some respects without a factual basis. And yet, if you look at the context, there were a number of decisions out of the Provincial Court that formed the basis and some of the factual backdrop for that. So, even though there was a reference to the Court of Appeal, there were a number of prosecutions in Provincial Court which I think helped the court to have a fuller understanding of what was actually the mischief complained of in terms of what the statute was trying to address.

That is the only one I can recall. The other one was a case involving pornography, the Butler case, which I eventually argued in the Supreme Court of Canada, where all the factual background was there, and it was incredibly important to have that background. I believe the case was Butler. That factual background gave the court, I think, an understanding of how the legislation was being utilized. If one proceeds in this factual vacuum by taking a quick reference, and by no means in this case would the reference be a quick one–we still have accused who have been denied bail sitting in our Remand Centre–the constitutional case would proceed independent of the trial.

So, even if you referred it to the Manitoba Court of Appeal directly, ultimately there would, of course, be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The time involved in that would still be ticking in respect of the trial that the Crown would have to prosecute. So, by proceeding jointly as motions rise–and I have got to say, as far as I am aware, there have been no formal motions on constitutionality filed yet. I believe those motions are going to be heard in August of this year. So, by proceeding together, we avoid some other significant constitutional difficulties, and one of them is the delay in terms of getting matters on to trial. So I do not pretend to know all of the reasons, but certainly those are the reasons that would cross my mind in terms of why there should not be a separate reference, because it would not increase the speed at which the trial was heard; in fact, it might delay it to the prejudice of the actual case.

Generally speaking, the courts prefer that these matters are heard together. So, for example, if you have the constitutional motion in the context of the trial, then, if the motion is ultimately dismissed and the legislation is upheld, the trial can proceed then. So the entire trial has to proceed, and then the matter is appealed holus-bolus or the constitutional issues, other issues, are appealed to the Court of Appeal. The reference, I think, is advisory only in some respects. Although a reference is binding, the question always remains: what is it binding; in what respect?

So, when you have the underpinning, the factual underpinning, it is not simply advisory. It relies, when you have a trial–the trial has evidence that may well lead to a more favourable conclusion in terms of the validity of the legislation. The other point, of course, is courts abhor a multiplicity of proceedings.

Mr. Chairperson: Six o'clock. The hour now being six o'clock, committee rise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being six o'clock, this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.