Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time. We are on Resolution 4.1 Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $406,200. It is on page 92 of the Estimates book.

Victor, do you have some new staff that you want to introduce today, or is it the same staff from Friday? I think there is a new face here, is there not? Wait until I recognize you on the mike.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): A couple of issues before we commence with any further questions. There might be a change in staff in terms of who are present in the Chamber today. Mr. Perozzo, the associate deputy minister, is here today, as well as Mr. MacFarlane, the deputy minister; Mr Pat Sinnott, of course, and Mr. Allen Fineblit who have been here previously.

As I recall, the point of our discussions last date was I was asked a question, and I am certainly prepared to answer that. That question came from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). The member for The Maples raised a very interesting question. It related to whether or not I would be prepared to instruct police officers to enforce the law. The very short answer to that question, and I do not know whether the member for The Maples was being facetious or not, but certainly my obligations are clear, both from a constitutional and a statutory basis. The Constitution indicates that the province is responsible for the administration of justice. Certainly a large part of my responsibilities relate to the administration of justice. Insofar as police activities may fall within the scope of that constitutional head, certainly any obligations that I have vis-a-vis the police and the public, I will certainly endeavour to carry them out.

* (1440)

Specifically, in respect of any statutory duties, I think it is very important to point out once again that the provincial Attorney General has a rather unique role vis-a-vis the federal Parliament and indeed the federal Attorney General. In many situations, the federal Parliament has seen fit to delegate responsibilities to provincial authorities. Whether that delegation is a constitutional matter or simply an acceptance by the provincial Attorney General is not the issue. I believe that Attorneys General in the past have, in fact, carried out their responsibilities, both constitutional and statutory, in an appropriate manner, and I see no reason why I would deviate from that.

The particular issue that gave rise to the member's question I think is very relevant to this discussion is back on the Firearms Act. The suggestion that the member attempted to leave with you on the past day was, whether or not the Attorney General of the Province of Manitoba had any statutory or constitutional obligation in respect to the Firearms Act. I want to, again, make it clear to the member for The Maples that that act does not require, either by operation of the Constitution or by operation of the specific provisions of that act, to have the provincial Attorney General administer the firearms registry or indeed to prosecute.

Looking at Section 2 of that Firearms Act, that act indicates that the minister defined in that act is the provincial minister designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. There is however a clear option provided. If the Lieutenant Governor in Council chooses not to appoint a minister, then the responsibilities for the administration of the registry system falls to the federal minister. It has been the position of this government and it has been made very, very clear by the past Attorney General to Minister Rock, the federal Minister of Justice, that this government would decline the option of entering into the administration of registering or administering the firearms registry. The statutory basis, as I have indicated, is very clear. There is no requirement for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to do that.

One of the policies, and I think the question that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) raises is really an issue of policy. It is not a question of statute or constitution at all, and the policy is this: Should it be the government that is responsible for enacting the legislation who should administer that legislation or should it be delegated to another government? In this particular case our government has said the appropriate government to administer this legislation, this registry, is in fact the federal Parliament.

I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) raised the issue of whether we could enter into an agreement with the federal government and the federal government could pay 100 percent of the costs of the administration. Well, if one fundamentally disagrees with a piece of legislation in terms of its policy, how then can that government in all good conscience spend its taxpayers' money, or failing this expenditure of monies use other resources to administer what in fact that other government should be administering? So in this particular case where we have said we believe in getting tough on crime, not simply taking an easy administrative route that appears to have some merit at face value, but indeed when one analyzes the statistics and the studies and the policy, there is in fact no justifiable basis. I would rather in fact have Justice Minister Rock justify his position to the farmers and hunters and the First Nations and aboriginal people of our province. I do not feel committed to doing that when I feel that the policy is fundamentally flawed. So the question then that was raised: Would I then ask police officers to fulfill their duties? The answer of course is I am responsible for the administration of justice and of the administration of particular statutes within a particular context. Insofar as my constitutional responsibility lies, as far as my statutory obligations lie, I will enforce them.

The second point again for the member for The Maples that has to be made clear again is the legislation itself says that it is the Government of Canada, not the provincial government, that will be charged with a prosecution under that statute. So his question is better put to the federal Minister of Justice. What will you be telling the police in respect of their responsibilities under the Firearms Act both in respect of the administration and in respect of prosecutions? That is not an issue that I need address because I have other responsibilities.

Lest the member for The Maples in any way suggest that this is simply a dereliction of duty or an avoidance of responsibilities and that this is simply a political dispute, I want to indicate to that member that this Attorney General, as have past Attorneys General, has consistently enforced statutes that have been passed by the federal Parliament, specifically the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act. Other statutes based on criminal law powers in fact have not been enforced by past provincial Attorneys General, not because they are disobeying the law, but in fact because that was specifically assigned to the federal Attorney General, for example, the Narcotic Control Act.

I want to again, lest there be any confusion, indicate that the federal government has proceeded in this statute, the Firearms Act, on the basis it indicates, of its criminal law power. As I have indicated, if in fact that is the basis, that does not complicate this issue in any manner because the statute itself is very clear that the provincial Attorney General is not responsible for the administration where it does not designate a minister, and secondly because of the specific wording of Section 116. So I trust that satisfies the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), and I would be prepared to answer any further questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Let us follow the questions on the issue of the opinion given by the Crown by the issue of the Friday book. This particular question also fits into the question raised in Oral Questions today. In what circumstances, according to protocol, do the police seek an opinion of the Crown before charges are laid?

* (1450)

Mr. Chairperson: While the minister is thinking about the response to that, is there leave for the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) to remain seated in the seat to the right of the honourable member to ask questions? [agreed]

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, the question, as I understood it, is: What protocol is there for the police in seeking opinions from the Attorney General's department in respect of possible prosecutions or other investigations? Again, it is very important to emphasize that the investigative body is not the Attorney General's department. The Attorney General's department does not investigate individual crimes. That, under our system of justice, remains with the police. So what the police do on a day-to-day basis is determine whether they have particular facts in a particular case to take a matter to prosecution. Where there is a doubt, they have a number of avenues open to them. This is not an avenue that is exercisable at the option of the Attorney General's department. These are avenues, or should I say resources available to the police because the Attorney General's department acts as a resource in the context of an investigation.

So, for example, if we go to an issue of a Highway Traffic Act case, a police officer may in fact issue summary conviction appearance notices--I forget the exact title--where an infraction of a highway traffic offence has been alleged, or are they called common offence notices? In any event, it is a very summary procedure. The police officer fills it out, ticks off appropriate circumstances and asks the accused person to appear at the appropriate place or indeed allows the accused to dispose of these matters on a more summary basis by mailing in the fine or otherwise.

What could happen over a series of cases is the police find that there are a number of not-guilty pleas, and even if the magistrate or the justice of the peace or the Provincial Court judge convicts, there may be a question of the legal basis upon which this conviction is achieved. It might be perceived to be a technicality, so even though there is an appropriate legal basis for a conviction, in certain types of cases the police may ask is this in the public interest to do so. So they may discuss this with their sergeant, they may discuss it with their chief or commissioner and deal with various avenues in terms of determining what is the appropriate thing to do.

One of the things that they are entitled to do is to consult with local Crowns. A Brandon city police officer or an RCMP officer stationed in the Brandon subdivision may well have a working relationship with a particular Crown attorney. A Crown attorney--the area that I am most familiar with is the Western Judicial District--may appear in certain courts on a regular basis so the police get to know this Crown attorney and rely on that Crown for advice from time to time. So it is not a question of a protocol, it is not the Crown saying I am sorry, this does not comply with the protocol, therefore, I will not speak with you. The Crown is expected to make him or herself available to answer legal questions of the police officer. This is done in a very informal way on many cases. So in that kind of a situation, no, there is not a protocol that would govern that kind of activity.

In other areas, perhaps more urban areas, the situation may be different, but a particular group of police officers, let us say the vice squad, would get a working relationship with a particular Crown attorney. That Crown attorney would, in fact, provide on an occasional basis legal opinions as requested by the police officers, and so that continues. One of the situations, and there are a number of situations where I could outline areas where police are free to utilize the Attorney General's department as a resource in terms of receiving legal opinions. In some areas, the Attorney General may recognize that there is a specific, more general problem and wish to then bring it to the attention of the police and say, we have concerns in respect of this particular issue.

If we take, for example, the issue of domestic violence, I think this is an example where there are clear problems in how accused people were treated or not treated or indeed how victims of these crimes were treated. So the Attorney General's department could well begin discussions with the police to ensure that there is a particular protocol or a way to deal with a particular situation. The zero-tolerance policy, for example, I think is a good example of how the police, reacting to certain situations, consistently come up with certain problems and inconsistencies result in how those are handled. These then are considered by members of the Attorney General's department and a policy or protocol is in fact developed, and in respect of the zero tolerance, this government is very proud of the consistency that it has brought to the application of the law and dealing with potential accuse or indeed victims. One has to understand that in so doing, the policy can never be at odds with what the Criminal Code or other relevant statute says. That policy must always be consistent. But insofar as possible the Attorney General attempts to assist the police in providing a consistent basis on which to approach these matters.

So, generally speaking, police approach the Attorney General's department in order to obtain legal advice and subsequently advice on prosecutions, and indeed the Attorney General's department takes over the prosecution.

In other situations, the Attorney General's department, in response, to specific areas of concern, for example, domestic violence, will develop policies in consultation with law enforcement agencies, and then ask the police to administer their discretion in a manner consistent with the policy and subject to, of course, any specific statutory directions that might be inconsistent with that policy. So the law is supreme. The policy attempts to bring a measure of consistency.

So, in response, then, under what circumstances are protocols developed? Protocols are developed in respect of general areas where concerns have been raised on an ongoing basis. We attempt to deal with the police on that, but this is never to limit police from approaching the Crowns on a day-to-day basis in terms of legal advice that they may require so that they can carry out their responsibilities.

* (1500)

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I, too, would like to ask one or two questions about the seizure of Nancy Friday's book, Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women's Sexual Fantasies. The last time I heard of this kind of censorship was when Salman Rushdie was threatened for writing Satanic Verses in another time and in another country. We have grown to expect something different here.

What I wanted to ask the minister is: My understanding is that the Crown attorney issued an order to seize the book without consultation with other members of his department, and I wonder if the minister could confirm whether my understanding is accurate or inaccurate.

Mr. Toews: Her understanding is inaccurate.

Ms. McGifford: Could the minister then outline the consultations for us, please?

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, this is a specific investigation. I will not go into the specifics of any investigation, but I am more than happy to repeat what I did the other day in respect of what happened in this particular case but without getting into any specific details of this case.

One of the things that has to be mentioned is that, again, the Attorney General's office does not issue orders. The Attorney General's department looks at a request that may be given by a police department for a legal opinion.

In this particular case, as I understand it, police approached a particular Crown attorney whom they have received opinions from in the past and requested his opinion in respect of a particular situation. An opinion is provided then by the Crown attorney. The opinion is exactly that. An opinion does not, in any way, bind the police. The police then choose, in conjunction with all the other facts that they have, what they are going to do.

In this particular case, again without getting into the details, an opinion was requested and an opinion was provided. What the police do with that opinion is then the responsibility of the police. The Attorney General does not become involved in respect of any particular investigation, only to the extent that the Attorney General is requested to become involved, and when I say the Attorney General I specifically refer to the staff.

We had a long discussion here the other day about the difficulties that an Attorney General, being a political person as well as the chief law enforcement officer, may find him or herself in. Therefore, it is very important that any decision that is made by the professional people in terms of what the opinion is going to be, it is important that this not be coloured by politics.

So the Crown attorney, if he or she is approached for an opinion, gives that opinion on the basis of legal principles. I might indicate that it is not unusual for the police, once they have received an opinion, to then go back and discuss that opinion with other experts, with community members or, indeed, with potential accused themselves; part of an ongoing process, and I think a very responsible process.

What happens if suddenly a police officer says, well, a Crown attorney has provided me with an opinion that appears that there is a prima facie basis upon which to lay a charge? If it were required that the police lay a charge, I think that there could be many injustices done if there was no discretion on the part of the police.

So our system very wisely takes into account the fact that investigations are an evolving matter, as in evolutionary. It is not a static process which one can simply follow in a numbered a,b,c,d way. It is an evolving process and so there may be further consultations, further considerations, and indeed it would not be uncommon in a complicated case to approach the Crown again in respect of a different aspect of the case, the legal aspect of the case or the same issue.

So I hope that if police officers need that kind of assistance that they continue to feel that they are entitled to come back to the Attorney General's department and say, look, we understand that you have provided us with a particular opinion in respect of this aspect of the case. There is another aspect that concerns us. I would hope that all of my Crown attorneys would sit down with the police and state, well, tell me what the issue is and that they would consider it.

The other issue is, of course, that we are dealing with professional people when we are dealing with Crown attorneys, legally trained people. Many of these, such as a particular Crown counsel whose name has been mentioned in a recent article, Mr. Mahon, a very experienced Crown counsel, and yet even if this Crown counsel is an experienced counsel, there are times when that Crown counsel says, you know, I do not feel comfortable giving an opinion in respect of this issue or this new information or this additional set of facts that you have brought forward. So that Crown attorney has then got the right and I would say professional obligation to go to his or her supervisor, for example, the Director of Prosecutions, Mr. Finlayson, or indeed to go to the assistant deputy minister responsible for Prosecutions and resolve some of these issues.

Sometimes the issue is not simply a matter of a particular case alone, but the Crown attorney might recognize that there is a larger issue that deals with a larger topic. So it is good not just to get opinions and input from colleagues, but indeed input from superior people in the department, superior in the sense of being administratively superior.

* (1510)

We have to remember, of course, that the legal expertise though, the professionalism that we hire these Crown attorneys for must be respected. I think the assistant deputy ministers and the director of Prosecutions respects the individual strengths of various people and that they take these opinions in mind when they are asked to comment perhaps on the same issue or when they comment on that issue in a broader context.

The practice of seeking further or even the second opinions is not something that is isolated to the practice of law. All professionals who are exercising their professional responsibilities should consult if there is a question of the propriety of what they are doing. In some cases they may feel that what they have done is correct, and indeed the police may be satisfied with what they have done is correct.

The one great check, which is a very important check and one which I think should give some comfort to the member opposite, is that it is not the Crown attorney and it is not the police who make decisions as to whether or not something can be brought forward and displayed in public or dealt with publicly. First of all, it is Parliament. Parliament has passed a law, and all opinions are then vetted with reference to the law and, secondly, with reference to cases that have developed under that law.

The Crown attorney then has what I would call an objective basis upon which to apply his or her legal skills and make a determination in a subjective context. That is very important. One cannot say in every particular case this is going to be a conclusion. For example, the area of pornography, if we want to deal with that. The issue of pornography is clearly influenced by community standards. I would find it very hard to think of a community in Canada that would accept violence against children, that would accept violence against women for the sake of violence against women and see that there is no recourse under the law. I would find it difficult to think that our law has arrived at that situation. Yet the interpretation of that might vary from community to community, and that is something that the law has recognized and that the courts have recognized, whether or not I would agree with that.

Clearly, in the area of violence against women, gratuitous violence against women, I would hope that all members here would find that abhorrent. The exploitation of children for purely commercial purposes without, if there could be, socially redeeming factors in that kind of a discussion or literary discussion or artistic display, I would find very difficult to accept personally. Yet the Crown attorneys make these decisions in terms of rendering an opinion and provide the opinion in that social context.

I dare say that we may have differing opinions among Crown attorneys about what is a particularly illegal act, or what is an illegal act or not. The safeguard though that I think above all of this is the fact that a charge goes to the courts, and ultimately then it is a judge who protects the interest of any accused. It is not an issue of censorship. Any accused or any potential accused can simply say to the police who wish to talk to them, no, I am sorry, we will not talk to you. Either charge us or go away. If the police then decide to pursue that activity, that charge, then it ultimately comes to the courts.

Again, it is not just the judge but it is the Crown who deals with the particular charge who will in fact have another opportunity to re-examine the case. One of the things that I have learned about the legal system is the ongoing examination of particular facts vis-a-vis the law or in relationship to the law. I think that is an important thing. We should never become so rigid in our approach to the enforcement of law that in the enforcement of law the injustice that could be avoided is in fact done.

Ms. McGifford: I thank the minister for correcting my language and educating me with regard to the law. I point out that I am a layperson with the interests of my community at heart and in mind. I do not always know the intricacies of the law, and I do not suppose my constituents really expect that from me. Nonetheless, I thank the minister for correcting me.

The minister has been speaking about his hopes. I hope that the opinions that he is talking about do not become thinly veiled instruments for censorship, unwittingly or otherwise. We know the stories of James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Salman Rushdie has already been mentioned, Henry Miller, and closer to home we know about the scurrilous attacks on Canadian writers like Margaret Laurence and Timothy Findley. One of the things I wryly observe is apparently the number of holds on Nancy Friday's book has gone up staggeringly since this public attention that the book received.

I suppose, I digress, Mr. Chair, really what I wanted to ask the minister is if he could tell me whether the opinion issued by the Crown attorney was a written opinion.

Mr. Toews: I think there is some of the preamble that has to be dealt with. It is very important. I appreciate the fact that the member is a layperson in terms of a legal person, but I know that the member is not an uneducated person, and that she in fact has many good skills. I am sure she will communicate what she has learned here today to her constituents in order to assure them of how the process works. Indeed, I think the comment of the member that this not be a thinly veiled instrument of censorship does require some address. That is, one has to understand, because I think the inference there was that government would somehow use the Criminal Code as its instrument to advance a particular policy. Perhaps, that was not the intent of the member. Indeed, knowing her as I do, I am sure she would not mean that kind of thing.

I think it is very clear that people who might read these transcripts understand that that was not the member's intent, and she can correct me if I am wrong in that respect. It is certainly not my intent. That is why it is important to reiterate this very important discussion about divorcing of the political figure and the legal figure in the Attorney General's office. What I have indicated on past days is that certain jurisdictions, Great Britain, indeed do not even have the Attorney General as a member of cabinet. Similarly, to the Office of Speaker, the Office of the Attorney General in Great Britain is separate and apart from cabinet. The problem there that they are trying to address is exactly the issue that the member has raised to ensure that legal decisions are not made on the basis of crass politics.

* (1520)

So, whereas we are not quite as fortunate in this country to have that clear division, we have built other safeguards into the system to ensure that politics does not become the basis for the making of legal decisions. One of the things that I have been, I think, very consistent on and I know other members have been very consistent, who have been and occupied the office of the Attorney General in the government of Manitoba, is that the professional legal decisions in respect of opinions for prosecution and otherwise are made by the experts--the Crown attorneys, the director of Prosecutions, the assistant deputy minister responsible for Prosecutions, the nonpolitical long-term civil servants--and that is very, very important, because these people do not act as simply an instrument of censorship. They act in accordance with their duty under the law to uphold the law.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

While the law is not always simple and easy to understand, the difficulty of the challenge does not make it any greater excuse to avoid that responsibility. I am very proud to say that the members of the Attorney General's department, the Crown prosecutors and others who exercise those types of legal functions, in my opinion, have done so on a consistently good basis. They are mindful of the admonition that the member raised or the concern that the member raised. So prosecutions in this province are not done on the basis of politics.

There is a very clear distinction between the political aspect of the Attorney General's function and the legal aspect of the Attorney General's function. There are cases, of course, where the Attorney General does provide advice and input in respect of the civil areas. The Attorney General is called upon to provide opinions either to cabinet or to others and express opinions in that respect. Again, there is nothing improper about that. Indeed, opinions in respect of constitutional matters an Attorney General may properly comment on. Indeed, an Attorney

General may request his or her staff to ensure that appropriate policies are in place to deal with broad-ranging problems rather than specific prosecutions.

Now, having dealt with the preamble then, the issue is in this particular case, was the opinion provided by a Crown attorney a written one? The answer is yes.

Ms. McGifford: I see the Chairperson was just as surprised as I was that the minister had finished.

I want to agree with the minister. Certainly my suggestion was not to suggest that this government was interested in censorship. I see absolutely no advantage at all for the government to practise censorship, but I was, of course, upset that this whole process was initiated by a single complaint laid six years after this book had been on the best-seller list. So what I fear is not censorship by the government, but knee-jerk puritanism, and that is really why I am asking questions today. So the minister has assured us that this is a written opinion. I wonder if he could tell us, is this opinion reflected the various aspects of I think it is Section 163 of the Criminal Code. That is to say, was it a thorough opinion?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Toews: I do not want to get into the specifics of any particular investigation, and when the member says, was this a thorough opinion, I think that is assuming a lot of things that I do not know, nor should I know, in particular situations. An opinion responds to a request, and when one looks at a particular opinion, is it thorough or not, depends on the nature of the request made and the circumstances that they were given in and the purpose for which the opinion was requested.

You know, I can envisage a situation, because I know it happened on many occasions when I was a Crown prosecutor and indeed when I served as a director of constitutional law, someone would phone me up and say, on a preliminary basis, could you give me a telephone opinion just on a particular issue? Are we going in the right direction? I know that is not the case in this particular case where there was a written opinion, but I am talking about a hypothetical where it would not be, so the police would pick up the phone and ask: This is the situation; you know the Criminal Code, what is your opinion about this situation? I would say, well, what purpose do you want this opinion for?

Well, the purpose for which the police officer wants the opinion may well affect how thorough an opinion it might be. For example, if a police officer simply wants to know is there a breach of the law in a general way, my opinion might differ than if the police officer said, I need an opinion for the basis of laying a charge under the Criminal Code; I believe that there has been a breach of the Criminal Code and therefore I want an opinion. In that kind of situation, I would probably write a written opinion--not always, if it was a matter that I had dealt with many times, I was familiar with the law, I was satisfied that the law had not changed, but I imagine Crown attorneys are called on many, many times during the course of a month or the year to provide written opinions or oral opinions over the telephone.

So, depending upon the circumstances, a written opinion might be appropriate, an oral opinion might be appropriate, and a lengthy opinion might be appropriate. In certain situations, it might be totally inappropriate. So you ask me, in any particular case, was it thorough? What I can answer is, I trust that the opinion met the requirements that the police officer required for it at that time.

* (1530)

Ms. McGifford: Mr. Chair, I want to return to the question again about this written opinion. I wonder if the minister could tell us--I will ask a few short questions and perhaps he could answer them in the same answer--the length of the opinion, i.e., how many pages this opinion is, and if he could tell us if it studied all aspects of the issues raised by Section 163 of the Criminal Code, and thirdly, I wonder if we could see this opinion.

Mr. Toews: This is an area that I have gone over once before in this House, but I am willing to proceed down that explanation once again. First of all, when the Attorney General's department and a specific prosecutor is requested for an opinion, that opinion is provided to the police. That is the police's opinion. In that sense, I hate to equate it with a normal solicitor-client relationship, but, generally speaking, when the Attorney General's department provides an opinion on a specific allegation. I am not going to get into any specific case any more than I have already that opinion, then, is provided to the police. That essentially becomes their property, and they discuss it and use it for their purposes.

One of the things that we have to be very, very careful about is simply providing opinions to the public in respect of matters where an accused's liberty might be at stake. That is not an appropriate thing to do. We do not simply release police reports or opinions given to police. So I can only go back to the answer given, that I understand that the opinion in this particular case--and I will not go beyond that--the opinion that the member is referring to, Mr. Mahon's opinion, was a written opinion, and that was provided to the police. That, I understand, then forms the basis of further discussions.

Ms. McGifford: My question had two other parts. I wonder if the minister could tell us the length of the opinion, that is how many pages it was, and also if he could tell us whether it studied all the issues raised by Section 163 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Toews: I can indicate that I have not reviewed that opinion, and I do not have any intention of reviewing that opinion. That is a legal issue that I leave with the prosecutors. I indicated to the member earlier that I do not have a copy of that opinion. I have never read that opinion, and I do not intend to involve politics in any investigation. So I do not have a copy of that opinion, and the police have been provided with a copy of that opinion, or that opinion has been provided to the police.

You know, the member seems to think, and again I have to go back to the explanation, that unless it is a 40-page document, it cannot be thorough. I do not know what that opinion was answering. What was the question that was provided? What was the nature in which that question was asked? What was the context? What was the purpose? I do not know, but what I can say is that, generally speaking, it is the policy of the Attorney General's department when requesting an opinion that they provide an opinion appropriate for the question asked. The opinion provided may not in fact be for an investigation or the laying of a charge. I am sorry, it is obviously provided for the purposes of an investigation, but there may then be, as a result of that opinion, certain further discussions and indeed certain further opinions.

Ms. McGifford: I quite agree with the minister that documents do not have to be 40 pages in order to be thorough, nor do speeches have to be half an hour in order to be thorough, as I am sure the minister knows.

I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly what questions the police asked the Crown attorney to provide an opinion on.

Mr. Toews: I cannot. That is part of the police investigation. I will not comment on a specific police investigation. The member knows that.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the people at the Winnipeg Public Library, I believe the person who would be responsible--no, I am sorry I am not quite sure of the person's name. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the Winnipeg Public Library officials, the appropriate officials, have received a copy of this opinion or this memo in order that they can be apprised of exactly in what way this literature may be offensive or may be obscene.

Mr. Toews: I am not going to get into the details of an investigation. We provide the police with appropriate resources. We do not do the investigation. If there has been anything improper in the course of that investigation, that is another issue and can be the subject of another complaint. For me as the Attorney General, as a political figure, to interfere in an investigation is just totally improper, and I will not interfere in an investigation.

I can only go back, because I certainly do want the member not to leave this Chamber thinking somehow that I have been remiss in any duties, or that members of my department have been remiss in any duties. Again, let us start out from the beginning. What is the role of a peace officer when he or she receives a complaint? The member says, it was only one complaint. Only one complaint. I am wondering what the member would say if there was a woman who had been beaten for six years and finally took the courage to call the police and only made one complaint. What would the police say? [interjection] What would the member's reaction be if I were to stay in the House here and say, oh, I am sorry, that is just one complaint and that is not significant?

What we want to do is to ensure that the appropriate process is followed. There has to be respect for that process, even if it is, yes, only one complaint, if there is a breach of the law involved. I hope that the member is not suggesting that somehow we can ignore the law.

I read over the comments of the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), who stood up for a half an hour talking about how the Attorney General of this province was avoiding his responsibilities under the Firearms Act. The member for Broadway stood up and said, why will the Attorney General not prosecute under the act? Why will he not administer the registration if it is constitutional? Obviously, the member for Broadway had not read the act, had in fact relied on a newspaper article which was clearly erroneous in terms of the understanding of the act, because in that particular act there is an option. The provincial Attorney General is not required to register unless there is a specific action taken to overtake that registration.

So I find it odd that the member for Broadway would accuse the Attorney General of being remiss in duties when there was no requirement on the Attorney General to do anything. Then, on the other hand, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) now says, well, there is only one complaint and so what if it involves a breach of the law. I say that if there is an alleged breach of the law, certainly there is an obligation on the part of police to investigate in an appropriate fashion.

So, getting back to the point then, the police receive a complaint. In some cases, Mr. Chairperson, they may never receive a complaint. They may in fact find a dead body. Nobody says anything. They come upon a dead body. Is the member saying, oh, there is not even one complaint here, we will just have to leave the body lie there? That is pure nonsense. The police react to facts. Those facts might include a complaint. They may include no complaint. So the numbers of complaints do not indicate whether there is a breach of the law or not. I think that is the first thing that has to be said.

Secondly, the police are the investigative body. Not only must that investigation be free of political interference from the Attorney General, it, in fact, must be free of improper interference by lawyers, generally in the Attorney General's department.

* (1540)

They make the decision. They are the professionals. In the course of their investigation, they may think that they need additional assistance and for whatever reason. I am not going to comment on any particular case. In some cases, they may pick up the phone and say, we have a dead body here; we have a number of knife wounds in that body, and there is a person here who says he did it; should we charge them with something? Well, a Crown attorney may say, well, on a preliminary basis it looks like you have at least a manslaughter. How thorough of an opinion do you want in that type of a situation? Should it be written? The circumstances, of course, demand it.

So the investigator is the expert to determine the amount of assistance he or she requires. That assistance does not just come from the Attorney General's department. That assistance might come from independent laboratories. It might come from psychologists; it might come from sociologists; it may come from community leaders.

The police are required on an ongoing basis to ensure that the investigation is appropriate for the circumstances. I can give another example just to make sure that the member understands that investigations are not done on a paint-by-number basis. There is almost a life of each investigation.

So, when the Attorney General's department is requested for an opinion, the police officers indicate the reasons why they need it and ask the opinion. The basis upon which that opinion or the manner in which that opinion is provided will vary from case to case. A preliminary opinion could be sought in one case, the investigation continues further, and the police might then say, there are now grounds to believe that maybe we should be looking at further evidence or opinions to buttress our position.

So, instead of going to the Attorney General's department, they may go to a private lawyer and say we have concerns about this. So they will go to a private lawyer, for example, in a very complex securities trial where they feel that that particular Crown attorney does not have the expertise to give the opinion or to prosecute that particular case. I know of a number of cases where private prosecutors have been hired by Attorney Generals' departments to give that kind of second opinion or further opinion.

Indeed, there are cases where there are second opinions given by the Attorney General's department in respect of the same issue, in respect of the same matter, on the same facts. That is nothing unusual. I think what needs to be said, though, is that in no case should it simply be a knee-jerk reaction but that these are the professional opinions provided by professionals in particular cases.

Ms. McGifford: The minister has brought up the question of domestic violence, and I would like to bring up the name of Lisa Drover who certainly is an example of the miscarriage of justice in this province. When we brought this to this minister's attention, he simply said that he was not going to get involved in the case, and, in fact, so often does the minister claim that he is not going to get involved, we wonder why he bothered to take the job that he has bothered to take. I think, too, that his comments on domestic violence and his comparing domestic violence to the seizure of books is just really fine evidence of the well-known adage that analogy is the least effective of rhetorical devices.

Having made those comments, I wonder if the minister, since the minister has told us that second opinions are not rare or at least second opinions are given, if the question of a second opinion is being contemplated with regard to the Nancy Friday book, Women on Top.

Mr. Toews: Well, I am glad the member raised that. I understand that a second opinion has been provided in this particular case subsequent to the first opinion.

Ms. McGifford: Does it concur with the first opinion?

Mr. Toews: I have not read that opinion. I understand that there is some divergence in the two opinions.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if I could dwell in the world of speculation for a minute and ask the minister if the Winnipeg Public Library were in fact prosecuted, who would be prosecuted? Would it be the library? Would it be individuals within the library? Would it be the City of Winnipeg, which, I suppose, is ultimately responsible for the library?

Mr. Toews: I leave those types of technical questions to the professionals who in fact can answer them.

Ms. McGifford: I wonder if the minister could tell us if the two opinions were by the same person or by different persons.

Mr. Toews: I do not want to get too far into any particular investigation. I think, given that it is public knowledge that there was one opinion, there was nothing improper about me indicating that there has been a second opinion given, and I can indicate that there were a person or persons common to both opinions.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister can tell the committee when the second opinion was provided to the police.

Mr. Toews: I would be speculating. I understand that the opinion was prepared in the last number of days, but as to when it was provided to the police, whether it was yesterday or the day before or today, I do not know.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the second opinion provide some relief for the libraries in particular? In other words, does the second opinion advise the police that there would not be a likelihood of conviction?

Mr. Toews: I will not get into the details of any opinion given to the police. One has to understand that the ultimate decision in any of these cases, whatever the decision, or shall I say, whatever the opinion of the Attorney General's department is, that the issue of a charge remains with the police. The opinions do not direct or order the police to do anything.

Mr. Mackintosh: Of course, my question does not involve the police. My question is simply whether the second opinion takes the view that the book should not or would not likely be subject to prosecution.

Mr. Toews: I am not prepared to disclose any opinions provided to police. If the police decide to release that opinion, that is their business. It is their opinion to deal with as they see appropriate.

* (1550)

Mr. Mackintosh: Was it the minister's general understanding then, given information that he has, that the second opinion, since it does have some divergence from the first opinion, mean that the second opinion does not advise the police to continue on the path they have by telling libraries to remove the book from their shelves?

Mr. Toews: For me to answer that question would be to improperly interfere with any investigation, and I will not answer that question.

Mr. Mackintosh: I have questions about the first opinion as to whether it was actually a memo of law or whether it was just a conclusion provided to police as to whether the book may be obscene under the Criminal Code. I ask the minister if he can find out from his staff whether the initial memo was indeed a memo of law, in other words, a canvassing of the facts and the application of the Criminal Code section to the facts.

Mr. Toews: Even if I knew what the opinion specifically stated, I would not disclose that here, what facts were related to the police or, indeed, what opinion was ultimately rendered. I believe it is public knowledge. A newspaper article indicated that the opinion indicated the book was obscene, but that does not mean there is a basis to lay a charge or whether a charge should, in fact, proceed.

That, again, I have to indicate, remains with the police, and I will not discuss any further particulars about that opinion because it would be improper to do so.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister at least comment as to whether the second opinion was as a result of public concern about what was taking place, or what fact situation may have changed to precipitate a second opinion which was divergent in its view?

Mr. Toews: All I can indicate is that the opinion did not come about as a result of anything I stated or directed any attorney to do.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee whether there have been legal opinions or memos or law in other jurisdictions, particularly B.C., which diverged or were of a different view than the first memo from Manitoba Justice?

Mr. Toews: I do not know.

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister can ask of his staff whether they received contrary opinions from other jurisdictions, particularly contrary to the first opinion provided by the department.

Mr. Toews: No, I will not ask the staff that. To do so would be to disclose what the second opinion might in fact state, and I am not prepared to state any more than I have, that there is a divergence between the two opinions. The issue is a police investigation. I am not going to get into a police investigation unless there has been any allegation of impropriety by the police.

Mr. Mackintosh: On Thursday, we asked the minister whether there was any vetting or approvals required of this legal opinion, which I think was thoroughly canvassed. I now ask the minister whether he can advise whether there is any vetting or approval, if you will, by the director, or another person in the department, of any legal opinions for other areas of law. In other words, where the police have a question about a particular section of the Criminal Code, is there a formal requirement or protocol that before any opinion be given it be vetted by another individual in the Prosecutions Division or at the ADM's level?

Mr. Toews: I know I discussed extensively on Thursday the process by which decisions are made regarding any particular decision in respect of charges. This is, of course, constantly an evolving situation, and if there are appropriate changes that we need to make, and I do not want to limit it to the area of obscenity, but if there are appropriate changes that need to be made, they will be made.

If we talk outside of the area of obscenity, because I do not want to get into that particular discussion now given the fact that there is a particular investigation being referenced here, but I am not aware of any formal protocol outside of that area of obscenity that requires a formal vetting of charges.

Mr. Chairperson: Committee will recess for 5 minutes.

The committee recessed at 3:58 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister explain why there were no consultations with the Law Reform commissioners, the president of the Law Reform Commission or staff, regarding the possibility that there may be other options available to the government, if it was so inclined, to reduce expenditures for law reform in Manitoba?

Mr. Toews: The issue of the Law Reform Commission is not a question of being dissatisfied with some of the product that has been put out by that commission. It is simply a question of limited resources and where one puts the resources. It was a decision of this government that more money be directed to areas of community involvement and public safety, and in that context, the money had to come from somewhere, so we made certain decisions.

The decision then was that the money would come from the Law Reform Commission, and in order to free up money--I cannot say we traded dollars for dollars, but the emphasis was public safety. We wanted to ensure that more community involvement in public safety and the law was achieved, so that decision was made.

I might say that this government is open to any suggestions that the member might have in order to facilitate carrying on law reform here in Manitoba. If the member knows where that money could be received or gotten from, I would be more than happy to hear what suggestions he may have rather than the decision that we have made.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister open to the suggestion made by organizations such as the Law Society of Manitoba which supports as a last resort and a last resort only continuation of the Law Reform Commission on a reduced budget?

Mr. Toews: I am certainly open to any discussions within the fiscal framework that we have established, and, indeed, there are discussions that are continuing to this very day and will continue in respect of alternatives.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister therefore prepared to abandon the government's plan to repeal The Law Reform Commission Act?

Mr. Toews: The government has brought forward a bill. Second reading has commenced. At this date, no firm reason has been given why government should discontinue that road. If there are other ways of proceeding, we will consider it.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister met with representatives of the Law Society of Manitoba and the Bar Association on this issue?

Mr. Toews: Yes, I have.

Mr. Mackintosh: Can the minister tell the committee what the outcome of those discussions was in terms of the options that the government may be considering for law reform on a continual basis?

Mr. Toews: Well, I do not want to raise any hopes. I have indicated to a number of individuals that the government is prepared to consider alternatives if that can be accomplished within a specific fiscal framework. I have not closed the door to those discussions. Indeed, there are some aspects of those discussions that cause me some hope that law reform will continue in this province, perhaps not in the exact mechanism or through the same mechanism, but that it will continue.

I would like to say that I want to remind the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that this was an issue, of course, that was raised back in 1988, '87, in that range, when the NDP fired all the independent members of the Law Reform Commission, and the response of the then NDP Attorney General stated, I agree with the member for River Heights, who was then the honourable--or it is, I guess, the Honourable Sharon Carstairs now, with respect to the activities of the Law Reform Commission.

He continued on and stated that it is also a fact of life that these days when we look for funding for our health care system, which is so inadequately funded by the federal government which promised 50-50 funding beforehand, in these days when we are looking to find more revenue for job creation and industrial diversification in this province, all departments have to look at areas of saving money.

So the Attorney General at that time said, in reference to the Law Reform Commission, this was the area chosen in our particular department. He indicated it was a difficult choice, and I agree with the former Attorney General that it is a difficult situation. He indicated that those are the tough decisions you have to make when you are in government. There is a discussion in Hansard regarding the difficult choice, and it is essentially a monetary choice.

The present government took the position that we in fact could find money to save that commission for a number of years. Indeed, that has occurred. We did benefit from the Law Reform Commission for a number of years, and now with continued federal government cutbacks, we are constantly under pressure to find new areas of money and also find areas where higher needs are presenting themselves.

So we make that decision at this time. It is not an easy one. We want to continue to work with members of the legal community to see if there are alternatives, and there are a number of alternatives. I do not want to state that we have made any agreements, because we have not made any agreements, but certainly there are some discussions under way. Some are further along the road than others, but none of those alternatives would see a return to the level of funding that the Law Reform Commission had in the past year.

Mr. Mackintosh: Where is the money appropriated to the Law Reform Commission being directed to?

Mr. Toews: As the member knows, the money, and that is why I specifically said earlier on that it is not an even trade, but, generally speaking, we determine what the priorities are in the context of the financial picture that we are faced with. In terms of this particular situation, as a government, we believe that issues regarding public safety should be given more emphasis than this particular commission. So I can indicate that it is matters like public safety, victims' assistance and others that we would like to see money expended and certainly not cut from that, if at all possible. Those are difficult choices. Sometimes even those have to be made, but at this particular time we felt that the best way to proceed was to enhance or maintain funding in areas of public safety and public protection.

* (1620)

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister referenced victims. I do not see any increase. In fact, I see a decrease actually in the allocation for victims, and particularly the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I am just wondering where the approximately half million dollars from the Law Reform Commission has been redirected.

Mr. Toews: We make priorities based on the fiscal picture that we have, and money is allotted to the programs that remain.

Mr. Mackintosh: I would just like the minister to flesh out his argument that he has presented in public that the reason for the Law Reform Commission's death at the hands of this government is because money is going to be redirected to public safety. An argument, by the way, that we reject because the Law Reform Commission has looked at areas of public safety, and, in fact, I would say elder abuse is essentially, critically an issue of public safety. I just ask the minister, where in the Estimates book in front of me has that half million dollars been redirected?

Mr. Toews: I am indicating I never said it was redirected. That is our emphasis. That is our policy emphasis, and there may be additional money in certain other areas where they were not previously. I can point at the Justice Initiatives Fund, which used to be $1 million and is now $1.5 million, and there it is, there is $500,000. But does that mean the money from the Law Reform Commission came from there? I do not know, but I can tell you that it is the priority of this government to try and find money for initiatives such as those.

Mr. Mackintosh: The description of the Aboriginal Justice Initiative is not public safety, and it is not described as public safety. It appears to me that the minister is not telling me where that money has gone. It is a simple question, just following up on what his advice to the public generally was: Where has the Law Reform Commission money gone?

Mr. Toews: If I can point the member to the Estimates of Expenditure, page 91, he can read for himself the fact that funding to the Attorney General's department has gone up $1 million. So the total appropriations have, in fact, increased by $1 million. He says, well, where did that money come from? It comes from the taxpayer. The suggestion in respect of the Justice Initiatives Fund that it is not going to deal with issues of public safety is wrong. One of the things that the department is developing or in fact--I do not know if they are completed in every respect--but is to ensure that the fund supports initiatives designed to prevent crime and improve the justice system in Manitoba. Clearly, in my opinion, that would fall under public safety to prevent crime, and it would be used for initiating, piloting and evaluating and implementing new initiatives. Each of these proposals will be considered on its individual merits and on its relationships to other Justice initiatives, as well as stated government priorities and commitments.

I am very sensitive to the fact that money like this is not used simply as an expedient way of handling money. I am very mindful of my responsibilities to this Legislature. So I ask the department to establish criteria upon which these types of funds could be disbursed and, again, the money is to be used for essentially public safety matters, public safety criteria.

The department has come up with a set of criteria which I would like to share with the member to put him to some rest as to how these funds are being used and, indeed, answer the question, how does the $1.5 million now in this Justice Initiatives Fund relate in any way to the reduction in expenditures by the Law Reform Commission. The issue of the Law Reform Commission, what it has and has not done to this date and what this government will continue to do in the area of law reform is something that I do wish to address as well.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

First, I will deal with the issue of the criteria, and these are essentially guidelines designed to assist the minister and cabinet in the expenditures of these monies. The criteria that the department have produced on an evolutionary basis and, indeed, I want to state that these are not necessarily fixed, but these are some of the criteria that are weighed in determining whether a proposal has the appropriate merits.

I want to say that the Executive Management Committee of the Attorney General's department came up with these criteria. They were not directed by me in that respect. It was recommended to me that we do develop criteria, and I agreed with them that there should be criteria. I was pleased to see that EMC took this task upon itself to develop criteria.

The first criterion developed by the departmental staff is, does the initiative have the potential to enhance public safety by deterring or preventing crime? Secondly, does the initiative have the potential to enhance public safety by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Criminal Justice system's treatment of offenders and of their victims? Thirdly, does the initiative address aboriginal justice issues? Fourthly, will the initiative build on existing community organizations or mechanisms and will it be responsive to community input and direction? Number five, does the initiative respond to the recommendations of a public inquiry into the Justice system or an external review of the Department of Justice's operations?

Number six, does the initiative have the potential to improve the effectiveness or enhance the efficiency of the Department of Justice's noncriminal services areas? Number 7, will the initiative be cost shared with other levels of government, community organizations and/or private sector partners? Number 8, can the initiative be maintained in the long run without significantly increasing government expenditures?

* (1630)

So I think these are prudent criteria developed by the bureaucracy with a view to assisting this Legislature in determining how monies are to be spent. If the member has other ideas or concerns that these criteria are not responsive enough to issues that he may wish to see this money spent on, I would welcome his input in that respect.

So the issue then of where the money from the Law Reform Commission has gone, given that we have not decreased spending in the department of the Attorney General but have, in fact, increased spending by a million dollars, and given that we have specifically designed $1.5 million in a Justice Initiatives Fund, I think, is very important and consistent with this government's stated public position that we want to see more initiatives in the area of public safety. It should also be pointed out that a number of other initiatives that used to be funded out of the aboriginal justice inquiry fund, which was only a million dollars, have now been put in directly into the department, either through courts or otherwise. The Hollow Water and St. Theresa Point projects are now a regular, ongoing, budgetary line in the department's Estimates.

So I think what we have seen, those two demonstrate or provide us with an example of how various initiatives can start out on a preliminary basis, that is, on a pilot basis, give us the opportunity to evaluate over a period of time, and then not only implement these new initiatives on a one-time basis but determine how they can, in fact, fit in on the regular lines of the department's Estimates.

I could say that some of the money that came from the Law Reform Commission has now directly gone into the area of these Aboriginal Justice Initiatives, and I think that is an excellent way to spend money if over time it has proven to be effective. Again, this is not to say that we are necessarily wedded for all time to any of these initiatives, but I think this is an indication of how matters can move simply from a preliminary fund to a more lengthy part of the department's service delivery.

The proposals I find that we would like to see brought to fruition, hopefully, he can comply with these criteria, but if the member has other projects that he feels should be more deserving or indeed address a certain issue, we should in fact be open to that and ensure that these criteria do not overly restrict otherwise good initiatives.

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, I just noticed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) is in the Chamber, and going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I just want to note that for the Hansard for May 21, 1997, in answer to a question from the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), the honourable minister had responded with the following words: "The member has a very short member."

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Order, please. The honourable minister, on a point of order.

Mr. Toews: I am just wondering what this has got to do with the Department of Justice Estimates.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is a point of order.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): I do not see the point of order on this one, I am sorry.

Mr. Mackintosh: My point of order is in the morning Hansard as distributed in the Chamber.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): I would ask the member for St. Johns to pose his question, please. I do not recognize this as a point of order.

Mr. Mackintosh: It is a point of order and a Hansard correction. Hansard just came out, and I am putting on the record a Hansard correction.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): All right. I understand you. The correction has been made.

Mr. Mackintosh: My point is, Mr. Chair, that the wording of the honourable minister at the time was "the member has a very short member," and it came out in Hansard as "the member has a very short memory." I just wanted, for the record, the correct words. I do not think that some of the colour in this Chamber should be set aside by what would otherwise be a good editing policy by Hansard. That is all.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): It was a Hansard correction; it was not a point of order. Thank you. If the honourable member for St. Johns could pose his question, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: My purpose in raising it, Mr. Chair, was to ensure that it was on the record and just to say so, we are aware of what is actually said in the House from time to time, that shows that you are human beings, and this place can be colourful from time to time.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable member for St. Johns, to pose a question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the minister can tell the committee whether there has been any action by the department in working toward what was described in the election campaign as a promised auto theft task force.

Mr. Toews: I thank the member for that question. I might indicate that, as the member has already stated, there was an election discussion in respect of this particular issue. It already commenced in the spring of 1995 in terms of the former Attorney General requesting that the department review the problem of auto theft and vandalism crimes occurring in the province.

* (1640)

This, of course, is not an unusual problem nowadays, but it is a very serious problem. I know that British Columbia, which has the highest rate of auto theft in Canada, also faces various serious concerns and are moving to take steps in that particular province. Manitoba, in my opinion, has an unacceptably high level of auto theft, and we have to do something within our sphere of constitutional jurisdiction to reduce that unacceptably high level of crime. We want to look towards all provinces in seeing how they deal with the problem. I know that reading an article in a magazine not that long ago where Saskatchewan is now also receiving a number of complaints. The incidents of auto theft are skyrocketing in that province, and the authorities there are also looking very seriously at how to combat this.

In any event, whatever happens in British Columbia and Saskatchewan with their very, very serious problem of auto thefts, I think that we can learn from whatever steps they take. But that does not prevent us from developing a made-in-Manitoba solution to the particular problem that we are facing in that respect. Therefore, pursuant to the minister's request in September, or in the spring of 1995--and I do not know the exact date, whether it was at the time of the election or after the election, because, as I recall, the election occurred April 25, 1995--a committee at that time was struck, consisting of representatives of the Winnipeg and Brandon Police Services, the RCMP, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and law enforcement services. Following numerous meetings and ongoing consultations, which continued throughout 1995 and 1996, the committee has now developed a number of recommendations. To be fully implemented, these recommendations will require the co-operation of various government departments, including Manitoba Justice and Manitoba Public Insurance and perhaps other departments as well as the police services in Manitoba.

I know from personal experience in dealing with various Justice problems, one always found that it was not simply a matter of changing statutes within the purview of the Justice department but in fact often involved other departments. The amendments to The Highway Traffic Act in 1989, dealing with drinking and .08, the administrative licence suspension, and the seizure of motor vehicles, while in many respects was a Justice initiative under the direction of the Minister of Justice, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), it involved Highways quite extensively. It involved quite a close co-operation, not just with Highways, but also members of the public, the trucking association and garage keepers, because legislation had to be changed with The Garage Keepers Act and the liens. So it is very important to get everyone involved. Well, similarly, these recommendations will require, not only the co-operation of government departments, but police services as well.

Because of the broad scope of the review and the ongoing developing subject matter, several of the committee's recommendations are close to implementation, and indeed, the matter is now being presented to a cabinet committee. I am not prepared to get into the specific recommendations other than to indicate that a committee of cabinet will examine these recommendations. I know those recommendations have been vetted by me. I have raised some concerns. Those concerns have, I believe, basically been addressed, and now I feel comfortable in taking it on to a broader committee of cabinet.

As I indicated, there are a number of recommendations, I think about 10 major recommendations, and I support all 10 recommendations, but I do not want to say publicly what those recommendations are. I may not have fully appreciated the consequences for other departments, so that remains to be seen as to exactly what the final outcome will be. The people involved in this committee are quite extensive, and I think for the record these people should be noted and indeed thanked for their ongoing involvement in this.

Just to continue, the members of this committee are Deputy Chief Keith Buizer, from the Brandon City Police. That is B-U-I-Z-E-R. He is a great runner, a great marathoner. I used to know him when I was--indeed, I saw him this weekend. I do not know if he is still running, but he was certainly a great runner and certainly a great police officer. I knew him when he was a constable, and certainly he brings a lot of expertise to that kind of a committee. He is now one of the deputy chiefs. I believe Richard Bruce is another deputy chief in Brandon. I do not know who the other ones are, but only Keith Buizer is there on this particular committee.

Also from the Winnipeg Police Services is Inspector Al Brolly, and he is responsible for crimes against property and the Street Gang Unit, including intelligent gathering and enforcement. Now, he was a member, but he has just retired. So I do not know who the replacement is, but that does not mean we should not publicly acknowledge and thank the inspector for the work that he has done in this respect.

Just moving back to Deputy Chief Buizer, he is responsible for the Patrol division, including street level enforcement in the city of Brandon.

The third member is Dennis Toyne of the Manitoba Public Insurance. He is the manager of Special Investigation Unit, and that includes the gathering of intelligence, enforcement and support to police forces. I think it should be also noted here that the MPI, as a corporate citizen, has been very, very supportive of police initiatives. Yes, they have a commercial interest in reducing crime and auto theft, but certainly the dedication of their staff and the contribution of their staff is subject, or should be subject, to praise. They certainly have done much to ensure that the public is aware of issues involving auto theft and others. Perhaps, Mr. Chair, you have seen some of the advertisements on television, not just only the auto theft but RoadWise generally. I think they have done a remarkably good job and should be commended.

From the RCMP on this committee is Corporal Joe Noel. He is the NCO in charge of the Auto Theft Unit for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and that included intelligence, enforcement and support to the RCMP detachments and other police forces.

* (1650)

The chairperson of this committee is Mr. Bob Chamberlain who is the director of Law Enforcement Services in the Department of Justice and also Mr. Bud McIvor. Mr. McIvor has just joined us here at the table. He is the policing services officer in Law Enforcement Services and has contributed in a very substantial way to the development of these recommendations. Ms. Karen Lambert provides research and analysis and is also from the Law Enforcement Services, as well as, Jason Clouston, C-L-O-U-S-T-O-N, also providing research and analysis from Law Enforcement Services.

So these individuals then have developed these recommendations. Certainly, I have been impressed with the work that they have done, and indeed I understand some of these recommendations are--I could disclose to the member now what in fact we are doing.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to talk about some of the matters that are in process. I do not want to say exactly what has and has not been done. They are still subject to some formal cabinet committee approval, but, for example, there was a recommendation that there be a uniform application of existing legislation across the province to enable the MPI to pursue cost recovery through civil legal action against every person including young offenders who steal or vandalize a motor vehicle of any kind.

A working process is in place between the Winnipeg Police Services and MPI for the past two years, but there is a similar process which is not fully functional within the RCMP and other municipal police forces in Manitoba. So a proper standard form to facilitate police officers supplying the required minimal information to MPI has been developed and was recently distributed to all police agencies in Manitoba. Again very, very important to co-ordinate the activities of police forces in Manitoba.

I know the member from time to time feels that the department of the Attorney General is not doing enough. That is fair criticism, although it is not based on fact. I think it is incumbent upon me as the minister to point out that these are the kinds of things that the department is doing. The department assists in the facilitation of this kind of standardization of police reporting procedures. That then assists MPI on behalf of the public to recover costs that it may have expended pursuant to its obligations under the insurance plan in Manitoba.

Many of the things at the department of the Attorney General and other departments in government may not be obvious to the public, in a public sense, but yet the background administration that is so necessary to the successful handling of these types of programs have been provided by staff in the Department of Justice, whether it is on a research and analysis basis, whether it is on chairing these meetings and bringing specific expertise, but certainly they are moving ahead with these recommendations to the point that I will be able to bring these recommendations to the committee of cabinet in a fairly short period of time.

Perhaps I can leave it at that. The member may have other questions, and I have other things that I could share with him if he needs to.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have a time line within which he expects the accepted recommendations to be put in place?

Mr. Toews: The nature of some of the recommendations are that they would be an ongoing process. One could not say that today all of the recommendations are in place and have achieved their result. It is obviously not that type of a process. Some are more certain in terms of time; others require constant appraisal and communication with other departments to ensure that continuing effectiveness is achieved.

What I can indicate is that I will be bringing all of the recommendations as a package to a committee of cabinet in the next short while. I do not even know if it has been scheduled yet, but I do not know if there is any impediment to me bringing that to the next meeting of the appropriate committee of cabinet and dealing with it there. So the department, in conjunction with the other agencies and other departments, have done an excellent job in fulfilling this government's obligation to move in respect of this area.

I want to also say that this is not necessarily all that the department is involved in, in respect of auto theft. There are other initiatives that we have to look at and examine and encourage, and that is occurring on an ongoing basis. Some of those involve discussions between ministers. Some involve discussions between other people, other than ministers, or indeed others outside of government per se.

Mr. Mackintosh: Was this group that the minister described putting into place any changes regarding auto theft or was it simply making recommendations?

Mr. Toews: Some of the recommendations obviously involve implementation. The recommendations, if accepted by cabinet, will involve some, if not all of these people, in their implementation and that is the way it should be. There is, I think, a natural continuity that makes sense to have some of the same people who have been making the recommendations, then involved in the implementation in whole or in part of these recommendations. At this time, I cannot indicate, of course, what cabinet will eventually recommend.

Clearly, some of the things that we have been doing, the former minister, in terms of the recommendations made to the Young Offenders Act, of course very, very important and seems to have found some support from the federal government, but that kind of thing needs to be done on an ongoing basis. So simply because one achieves success in one area does not necessarily mean that that is the end of government involvement. Related to this area, because the whole issue of car theft has a very close relationship to gang activity--so is there something that this committee can look at in terms of gang activity and cars? The new legislation that the federal government passed relating to gang activity, while it was brought about perhaps as a result of specific concerns that the federal government had in Quebec with particular types of criminals, we find that the legislation may well be applicable and be of assistance to us in this province. So I would not be opposed to this committee looking at particular recommendations related to the gang laws and activities, and so, as I say, it is always an evolving matter.

* (1700)

That is one of the things about law enforcement, if you want to get historical about it, and it is quite important to emphasize it in the issue of auto theft. Well, during the 1930s when the Americans had a lot of problems with organized crime in various areas, the traditional methods of crime prevention were not working. So the federal government in that context developed new laws that responded to the evolving nature of crime at that time. One of the sort of responses was by the federal government prosecuting known criminals for income tax evasion rather than the specific substantive crimes which were very, very difficult to prove.

Again, our federal government with certainly the concurrence and encouragement of the provincial government has moved in that type of direction. So all of these recommendations have to be constantly examined in the light of ongoing criminal activity. We can never be complacent and say that, well, these recommendations are the be-all and end-all--I think it is something like that--and that we have to remain vigilant in that respect.

I noted with interest some of the NDP gang action plan in respect of various issues, and I take some comfort in the fact that their plan is consistent with our philosophy in some respects. So we look at not just internal recommendations, but also what do other people have to say about it, not necessarily people just who agree with this government's policies in every respect. So we want to continue to make initiatives, recommendations in that respect, and I will certainly bring these forward to cabinet or to the committee of cabinet.

I hope in the near future I will be able to share these in a more detailed way with the member from St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). One of my staff members, Mr. McIvor, drew to my attention a statistic which may not be very well known in the city of Winnipeg, but approximately 85 percent of the auto thefts are gang related, and so clearly we see here how policies related to gangs may well be related to auto theft, and we have to work together with all relevant organizations or agencies to ensure that our approach to crime is effective.

If British Columbia, which now leads the nation in auto thefts on a per capita basis, has some success in reducing their very, very serious problem, I, for one, would encourage my staff to find out what they are doing, how they are approaching it and try to implement some of those in this province as well. I have never been shy of accepting good ideas no matter what source they come from.

Mr. Mackintosh: The member references B.C. as the highest rate of motor vehicle theft. I am wondering, it is my recollection that in 1995, the last year for which Canada-wide statistics were available, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics noted clearly Manitoba leads of all the provinces. I think that was actually a trend over about three years. I wonder if the minister can tell me where he possibly gets B.C. as having the highest rate.

Mr. Toews: My information came from an article in The Globe and Mail when the B.C. Attorney General was being interviewed in respect of an issue on the funding of police forces by the ICBC, the British Columbia insurance corporation, of police forces, and the justification was not that they were creating a private police force but in view of the very high rate of auto theft. Now my understanding of that article, it was clear that B.C. was the highest, but if it is not I think I could be corrected if the member has other information that he wishes to draw to my attention. I think the point is not so much that B.C. has or does not have the highest rate; the point is that as provinces we all share this particular problem.

I know that in the magazine article that I was referring to earlier about Saskatchewan, where in a city of 150,000 people in Regina, they had an inordinately high rate of auto thefts in that city in a particular period of time. Whether that means now that Saskatchewan has got the highest rate, I do not know, but the point is Saskatchewan has a very serious problem with auto thefts, and I believe that they are taking steps to address that. The point then is that we have to learn from the other provinces and not only rely on what our experience is.

Mr. Mackintosh: The point I will leave is that I always try to be very careful with my crime statistics because there is no single measurement of crime; there are only indicators. I certainly would hope that Manitoba would not be the worst, but it is. I just used the figures to show that Manitoba suffers a disproportionate challenge in dealing with auto theft, and even if it were not the highest, we nonetheless have a very serious problem here.

Can the minister tell the committee if the government has made any moves in following its election promise to establish a crime prevention registry for the province?

Mr. Toews: I am sorry. If the member could repeat that, I would--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable member for St. Johns, if you could repeat the question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Have there been any steps made by the government to follow up on the promise from the election campaign that the government will establish a crime prevention registry?

Mr. Toews: I understand that in fact has been completed and distributed throughout the province, and I was just seeing if I had a copy of it here for the member.

I have a photocopy of that particular report, but I can see that the member gets a more professionally printed copy for his records and for his reading.

* (1710)

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister have in his hand what comprises the registry?

Mr. Toews: Perhaps the best way to talk about that is to quote very, very briefly from that book. What is stated in the introduction of that book is that there are a variety of crime prevention programs operating through partnerships involving government law enforcement agencies and community-based groups. So this book or registry is an overview of the initiatives available in the province, and there are essentially three sections in the book.

The first section outlines programs offered through provincial government departments. The second focuses on programs offered through the province's law enforcement agencies, and the third looks at the efforts of community-based organizations. It was the intention of the publication of this registry that sharing this information should help trigger new ideas and help other communities enhance their own efforts.

Certainly citizens are encouraged to read and review this and indeed to contact law enforcement services to see if there can be any improvements in these particular programs. So the addition of this registry to the information available to our citizens, I think, is commendable and we trust will assist as one of the tools that we can use to approach the issue of public safety in a systemic way.

Mr. Mackintosh: To clarify: Is the minister saying that document now has been distributed in a final form throughout the province and, if so, who has received a copy?

Mr. Toews: I do not have a list of people who may have received this document at this time, but I can make that list available to the member. I know that it has been distributed throughout the province to, I believe, selected agencies; essentially police services at this time. The intention then is to distribute it on a further basis. That, I understand, is being done through Mr. Sangster's branch. So, perhaps, Mr. Sangster, when he is called down here or is required down here, could advise me of that or I can get that later for the member. It depends on the detail that the member wants to go into.

I would just indicate that these are fully available now and so it is just a question of what further distribution needs to be done.

Mr. Mackintosh: Has the government done anything following up on its promise from the election campaign to establish a first-time young offenders counselling program?

Mr. Toews: The government is, and I will have to ask my staff to look at some of the issues involved in that. I know that there are a number or at least one application to initiate that type of a program under the Justice Initiatives Fund and that is something that we will then look at.

There are, in fact, existing resources that may well accomplish that end, and I think one of the things that it is incumbent upon us to do at a time when there is, frankly, a shortage of money--we do not always have as much money as we want--areas such as the youth justice committees which I know the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is very interested in, and indeed which I am very, very interested in. But this mechanism under the Young Offenders Act provides what I would consider an appropriate area to engage in counselling or alternative diversion.

One of the things that has to also be remembered is that the Probation Services does provide that on a regular basis. Certainly some of the probation officers, if not all of them, who are dealing with first offenders, young offenders who make it into that aspect of the justice system would be dealt with by probation officers.

I think one of the things though that needs to be stated is that we need to get the community more involved in this particular issue, that we divert people from crime, and especially first-time young offenders, so we will evaluate any proposals that are made in that respect and look at existing programs to determine whether they can be strengthened to ensure that our young offenders can be diverted from the criminal justice system by the effective use of existing resources. Not simply diverted for the sake of diversion, but diverted and provided appropriate assistance, including counselling.

Mr. Mackintosh: In the same election campaign the government was going to recommend to the MPIC that there be more favourable treatment by MPIC for those who use theft prevention devices on their vehicles. I wonder what came of that.

Mr. Toews: That issue is under active consideration at this time, and I might indicate that is one of the recommendations that is going to the committee of cabinet.

Mr. Mackintosh: Last year, following I think what was some significant embarrassment to the government on what they were doing with regard to those convicted of drinking and driving, the Minister of Justice in a very short time made announcements that they were going to change the drinking and driving regime in the province to lower particularly the blood alcohol level that would be permissible under law. The minister at the time said that the legislative changes would be introduced in April. I wonder what happened to that, given that we are now into the at least halfway or later stages perhaps of the legislative session.

Mr. Toews: These in fact are measures that will be the subject of a bill that will be introduced in this House. There is some community consultation, initial community consultation has been done with various groups, and indeed I will be meeting with one final group, and we trust that legislation can be brought in in very, very short order.

The basic principles that we have already discussed with some of these individuals who are interested in this I think are reflected in the bill now, but I want to ensure, when we bring this into law, that we in fact have an effective program.

One of the difficulties, as the member for St. Johns would realize, being a lawyer, is the issue of the constitutional jurisdiction of the province in the area of impaired driving. As he will recall, back in 1989 when this province and this government initiated the administrative licence suspension in Manitoba, the Winnipeg Free Press specifically and continuously called that legislation unconstitutional and fought very hard to see that that legislation was not implemented in this province. I found it very surprising for a newspaper to take that kind of position when the loss of so many lives can be directly attributable to drinking and driving.

One of the most startling articles that I ever read was when the Winnipeg Free Press quoted the fact that there was a tremendous burden now on dialysis, because there were not that many young people being killed anymore and there were not organs available for transplant. I could not at all seriously believe that a newspaper would actually print that kind of an article, saying that we need young people dying so that there could be people off of dialysis machines.

* (1720)

Well, whether one agrees with the Free Press in that particular respect, they were proven wrong in respect of the constitutionality. I know the Liberals strenuously opposed the administrative licence suspension law. Paul Edwards in fact stated to anyone who would listen at the time that it was unconstitutional, that he would see to it that legislation did not see the light of day. To give the NDP credit--I remember I was a civil servant at the time, and I talked to one of their members; I cannot exactly remember who it was--the NDP, I think, begrudgingly supported it. They felt that the cause was a good one, but they did not know whether the means was acceptable. Unfortunately, in this case, I would have thought the Liberals would have at least come along that far. I know the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) would have, but unfortunately, the Liberals did not support it at that time. That was during the minority government days, so the government here, the PC government, needed the support of the NDP members, and the NDP members did provide that support. So I want to give credit where credit is due. In spite of the fact that every lawyer in this province outside of a few lawyers said it was unconstitutional, Jim McCrae, who was not a lawyer, or the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) who was the Attorney General, was not a lawyer, felt it was the right thing to do. So we had to be very careful in implementing a particular program.

Similarly, with the .05 issue, we have to make sure that we stay within our area of constitutional jurisdiction and that we not simply just pull licences for the sake of pulling licences but that this goes to a better and a greater end. One of the things that I think really made the .08 administrative licence suspension so successful--and I understand that literally it has cut the number of deaths related to drunken driving in this province by 30 or 40 percent, which is a remarkable statistic, and despite the Free Press lamenting the fact that now young bodies were not available for organ donation. Well, we also have to consider it in this context.

What I was going to say is what made that program so very successful was the educational component. So, when people lost their licences under the administrative licence suspension, we did not approach it in a punitive fashion and apply principles of criminal law, which in fact we really could not, but what we attempted to do through that program is to ensure that those individuals who are caught driving over .08 were required to take an educational program, and that educational program is still carried on by the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. I do not remember exactly what the fee for that is, but it could be about $270 at that time. I do not know what it is now. But the wonderful thing about that is that it does not cost the taxpayer money. These programs are funded by the people who need the help and are in a position to pay for it, and at the same time remove a great danger from our highways.

In respect of the .05, it is clear and the expert evidence is undeniably clear, that everyone driving a motor vehicle with more than .04 in his or her system is impaired in their ability to drive a motor vehicle. I recall when I was a prosecutor bringing out expert evidence, and it was Kathy Purchase at that time who would always come out, who is still associated with the RCMP. Indeed, I had occasion to see her at a function Friday. She was a really credible witness and a scientific witness, who said it does not matter how many years you have been driving, the alcohol does not make a difference. If you are over .04, you are still physically impaired in your ability to drive a motor vehicle. Over the years, you may have learned to compensate for some of that impairment, but that does not mean that you still are not impaired. So that is an important point to remember.

So we have, in effect, an issue of safety on the highway, and how does one address that. At present, there are certain, shall I say, sanctions, because there are essentially licensing actions that can be taken against people at .05, and what I would like to see is build on that to incorporate some of the success that has been made under the .08 law. I would like to see and, hopefully, the ultimate bill will reflect this, is the educational component and also a recognition that people driving motor vehicles over .05 are impaired in their ability to drive a motor vehicle.

Just one of the things that I would like to see--and, again, I am speaking in a hypothetical way because I do not want to talk about the bill itself--I do not think it is proper to talk about the bill--is that we want to look at increasing some of the fees to ensure that the program is paying for itself, because it should not be the ordinary taxpayer who funds this type of program. If you are a licensed driver, if you are out there on the road and you are driving over .05, if education is the answer and a program is offered, in my opinion it should be the people who need the program who should pay for that program. If they have the money to get in a motor vehicle and drive that car, they should also be required to pay for the program to alert them to the dangers of that program. I think we can approach this from an educational basis. So I will leave that until we actually submit the bill.

Mr. Mackintosh: During the election campaign that we are talking about, the government also promised that the province would move for the provincial seizure of vehicles of those who solicit sex from prostitutes and require permanent forfeiture of the vehicles on conviction. When we last raised this issue with the minister, the former minister, she said that she responded by writing a letter to Allan Rock asking that the federal government do this when in fact the election promise was very clearly for provincial action. Has the minister taken action subsequent to the action of the former minister of writing to the federal counterpart?

Mr. Toews: This is an issue again which is similar to the administrative licence suspension issue and the seizure of motor vehicle issue. How close can you get to the criminal law power before the provincial program is unconstitutional?

So what we have to do is develop a program that meets the spirit of our election promise--I believe that is very, very important to do--and yet make sure that it is effective. Clearly the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and I, and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and I know that the best way of dealing with this is through amendments to the Criminal Code. Unfortunately we in this Legislature do not have that jurisdiction, but we can take certain steps. I think that when the member sees the bill, and the bill is in I think 99 percent shape, if not 100 percent ready to go, that while it may not be exactly what he envisaged as being perhaps the best way of approaching it, I believe it is the best way from a constitutional sense and also in a practical sense.

* (1730)

There was an initiative, I can indicate to the member, that had been developed, and it was felt that the initiative bordered too close on the area of the criminal law of power. So one of the things that we had to do other than consult with the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) is ensure that we are within our constitutional jurisdiction. When we raised our proposal with the police, the police gave us some very, very good advice. What we see the proposal now is not exactly what I might have wanted if I was in charge of amending the Criminal Code, but it has some very interesting aspects and very, I think, positive aspects and aspects that are supported by the police.

So we essentially took our election promise, put it into a statutory form that falls within our jurisdiction, consulted with the police, and I think the result of it deals not just with the seizure of johns' cars, but also some steps to deal with the social issues of prostitution. I have to thank the Chief of Police and his staff for the input that they made in that respect and the real enthusiasm that the Winnipeg city police made in respect of this particular plan.

They felt that the approach that we had approached them with was good, but that it could be improved and failing the ability of us to change the Criminal Code here, I think this is one of the best statutory devices that we can use without infringing on the division of powers in the Constitution Act, 1867. So that bill is almost ready to go and the member will get a chance to see it.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the government's intention to introduce that bill this session?

Mr. Toews: Yes, it is. I should be introducing it, barring any unforeseen circumstances, within a week.

Mr. Mackintosh: There has been some discussion here and elsewhere about whether those who solicit sex from minors could be found guilty of child abuse. I know the province has looked at ways of getting those individuals on the Child Abuse Registry or getting treatment somewhere to child abusers, but I am wondering about the actual conviction and whether there could be something done there. Has the minister looked at that issue?

Mr. Toews: I am glad the member brought that question forward. It is something that I have certainly seen recommended in other provinces, but I have not yet seen any draft legislation from other provinces.

It is a very difficult issue. It is essentially creating a summary conviction offence for child abuse where one solicited prostitutes under the age. There are all kinds of legal and evidentiary problems with that, but even overcoming those evidentiary problems, the situation reminds me very, very similar to the situation where the provinces, very frustrated with the federal government's inaction in the area of prostitution, enacted certain by-laws. Some of the communities enacted by-laws. Certain provinces passed almost summary conviction laws, and the case is called Westendorf, I believe it is, where it declared that prostitution was essentially a matter of a federal jurisdiction and that the province did not have the jurisdiction that it sought in that Westendorf case.

That is the issue. I would look forward to discussing that particular solution with my colleagues from provinces where that has been recommended. I believe the provinces which are looking at that are Alberta and Saskatchewan, and, frankly, I would like to see how the case would be proven because when you are looking at a criminal law offence, you have to basically prove that the person knew that the person being solicited was or thought that the person was under the age of 14. Now, that is very difficult for police operations to get that type of information, and on what type of evidentiary basis do you infer that type of knowledge?

I know during the early 1990s, '90 and '91, there were a tremendous amount of cases on the issue of reverse onus. There are about four or five different types of reverse onuses, some being constitutional, some being unconstitutional. Frankly, I do not know what kind of reverse onus you could create in this kind of situation to create that kind of a summary conviction offence. I remain open to it. I think if we can do it, that is something that we should seriously look at, and when I say when we can do it, that it be on a constitutional basis.

Frankly, I think the better method is to do it through the Code, but, again, even under the Code, given our Charter of Rights, there are some serious, serious evidentiary concerns.

Mr. Mackintosh: There are two issues I just want to revisit before leaving this line. I understand that the department now has a new policy that when the police make requests for opinions to the Crown before laying a charge, that all opinions are to go through the director of Prosecutions. Is my understanding accurate?

Mr. Toews: That is not correct.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister then can tell the committee what the change of policy is in terms of how the police can obtain legal opinions from Prosecutions.

Mr. Toews: As I indicated in my earlier answer, outside of the area of obscenity, there is no protocol that requires a person to go to the director of Prosecutions or to go anywhere. There is no fixed protocol.

I am very concerned about fixing methods of obtaining legal advice from the Crown. In the area of obscenity, and if that is what my learned friend is referring to, I can indicate that departmental officials have stated that where these types of requests are going to be made, there is a protocol that will be or is developed to deal with the particular sensitivities of this situation. This is a response by the department to a particular situation that they feel will assist the police and indeed the citizens of Manitoba in ensuring that appropriate decisions can be reached.

* (1740)

Mr. Mackintosh: Just to make it clear, is the minister saying that the new policy, which I understand has just been announced, is that in the case of a request for opinion as to whether material is obscene under the Criminal Code, those requests must go through the director of Prosecutions and those requests alone?

Mr. Toews: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, this is a working policy designed to assist the Crowns in achieving appropriate opinions of the law in this area.

Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the position of the department that in fact a mistake was made with regard to the opinion about the Friday book?

Mr. Toews: Without getting into the details of this specific case, because I do not know what stage that investigation is at--it is a police investigation, it is not an investigation by the Attorney General's department as I have indicated earlier--I understand that the second opinion that was rendered was done with the consultation of the Crown attorney who rendered the first, and I do not know what circumstances changed or what in fact changed, but that the Crown attorney agrees with the opinion that was given.

So I do not know whether it is an issue of the discussions that took place. I do not know whether it is an issue of additional facts being brought to the attention of the Crown attorney, but without--I just do not want to go into the issue, other than saying I think it is perfectly consistent with the way investigations are handled. They go in a progressive way: the police ask for these opinions, opinions are provided, discussions take place, new facts come to light, and a second or other opinion can be obtained which may or may not agree in every respect with the first opinion.

I do not know whether a mistake was made in the first situation. We will never know that until a court rules on the situation because the Crown attorney who made the first opinion may well be right. We do not know that, and that is not our role. Our role in the Attorney General's department is twofold when examining a matter that comes to prosecution. This is subsequent to the delivery of any opinion and, that is, is there a reasonable likelihood of prosecution or of success of a prosecution and, secondly, is it in the public interest to do so.

I do not know if those questions have been re-examined, whether they are now being examined in the second opinion that might make a difference in the opinion rendered. I do not know, and this is an issue that I think is appropriately left to the staff to make that professional type of opinion.

Frankly, I have not looked at either opinion, and unless there is any specific need for me to do so, I will not. I leave that to the professionals who make these decisions on an ongoing basis.

The department, as a working policy, I understand have implemented this particular process, and if there was a defect in the process, which I cannot say now because I do not know, and indeed no one knows because we do not know the ultimate result of what any prosecution would be or will be or could have been. I am not prepared to say.

Mr. Mackintosh: It appears that the concerns we have been expressing in this committee are being borne out, and yet the minister responded by defending all the existing protocol and actions in the particular circumstances as just fine. I think it raises a serious concern about whether the minister is going to be dealing with these concerns that we raise on a constructive basis or whether he is simply going to rise to the defence of what appears to be a loose procedure in the department. Would the minister not now retract his emphatic defence of the system that he brought into this House on Thursday and admit that there were shortcomings on how opinions on the most difficult, and perhaps the most difficult subjective area of criminal law is in Manitoba?

Mr. Toews: I do not know if the member is categorically saying there is some kind of a deficiency in a systemic problem in the way that charges are dealt with. One of the concerns that I have and, clearly, I want to ensure that we are sensitive to that, is that our resources must be available to the police on a basis where they can access those resources, that we can provide them with the best support that we can provide them with and ensure that we assist them in their investigation as much as possible. I do not know why the member thinks that what I have indicated in terms of process is in any way erroneous or indeed misstates a fundamental principle of law. I can only repeat again, the police provide the investigation. The police then determine what in fact they should be doing in terms of ensuring they have all the necessary evidence. They have to take a look at what facts are available to them. They, too, have to read the Criminal Code, and police do this on a constant basis. There are times when the police look at a particular fact, situation and look at the Criminal Code and see that they do not understand something and they need assistance. The Attorney General's department will provide them with that assistance.

If there is a mistake in the rendering of any opinion--and I am not prepared to state that here because I do not know if there is a mistake and I do not think we will ever know--then there are a number of mechanisms which ensure that there are safeguards, including the judge's decision at the end of the day, because a judge is the only one who is ever going to be able to tell us was this decision the appropriate one. I can indicate that the police have expressed to the assistant deputy attorney general today continuing confidence in the department and in the Crown who provided the initial opinion, so it is not a question that the police here have any question about their confidence in the Crown attorney.

* (1750)

If the member is asking are there ways of improving the system, I think there are. Clearly there are. We can always seek to improve the system. What we do not want to do is overburden the system with administrative and legalistic technicalities that in fact divert issues and ensure that justice is not done. I can only pose the question of what would the member say if, in fact, in every case where a woman or a child were abused, no police officer could lay a charge until that was reviewed by the director of Prosecutions. Frankly, I for one would have a lot of difficulty with that situation. I would think that we would not want to set up administrative barriers to ensure that abuse cases are heard. We would want those dealt with in an expeditious way.

While I admit there are differences between, let us say, a charge of obscenity and an assault case, assaults are sometimes very, very complicated in terms of things like motivation. Was there self-defence? Was there provocation? Was there any type of factor which would indicate that in fact this was not a criminal action? I need only point out the situation where you have a consensual dispute, usually not between domestic partners but two individuals who in a very friendly way decide that they are going to find out who is tougher than the other person and they go to it. Now, is that an assault? I mean, on the face of it, if an officer pulls up and two people are pummelling each other, it may well appear that there is an assault going on, but this could well be a consensual situation.

Now, clearly, in the domestic area, that is not what I am talking about, but there are complicating factors which one could manufacture then in a legal sense and say, well, all of these matters should go to the director of Prosecutions. Well, I can understand the director of Prosecutions setting up a working policy to deal with obscenity cases. I would have a very great deal of difficulty in the setting up of a policy that would require that kind of administrative screening in the cases of assault. Well, one could then say, well, let us do that for only indictable offences rather than summary offences, and I think what we do is get into an overly legalistic situation that does not take into account the safeguards that already exist in the system. So the department's action in this respect is, I think, proactive, but again I would always indicate with a measure of caution that we want to ensure that our decisions are dealt with by professional people, professional lawyers, professional Crown attorneys rather than complicating the issue with politics.

Without taking away from the importance of the freedom of speech, which of course is a very, very important issue, Crown attorneys hundreds of times a day make decisions as to whether someone may go to jail and lose their liberty, sometimes for the rest of their lives. Again, what I must emphasize is that there are all types of safeguards built into the system to ensure that the Crown attorneys are responsible and responsive to the justice system.

So the member may say, well, in the area of impaired driving, it is not that important. Why take that to the director of Prosecutions, because what are the consequences? Somebody loses their licence? Well, licence could be the lifeblood of a person's economic activity, and to take away a licence by doing an administrative licence suspension or a Criminal Code charge, there are very, very serious consequences.

I think that, without belabouring the point, there are forms of screening that are recognized by the law for special types of cases, and the law has specifically recognized those particular cases. Those are not in the area of obscenity, but I would point out that the Criminal Code requires the Attorney General's consent for several types of offences. So there are specifically legislated screening devices in the Criminal Code for particular offences. In the area of Section 163, that is not there, and I think it is recognition by Parliament that one does not want to overburden these formalities and thereby defeat any eventual prosecution.

I think what is being done here by the assistant deputy minister is simply putting into place administratively what the Criminal Code recognizes statutorily in certain other situations. Again, this is something that on a professional basis the Crown attorneys should be looking at from time to time. There will be other issues that they want to look at from time to time, and they may want to review the whole area, but I think that to come out and specifically state, we will set up screening devices for every charge, we may as well double the staff in the Attorney General's department, and I think to no demonstrable good end.

The member has asked, was there a mistake made? All I can say is that the police have expressed their continuing confidence in the department and in the Crown who provided the initial opinion. I think, by and large, that has answered the question, but if in fact the member has any concerns about the department's approach to freedom of speech, I would be pleased to discuss that further.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now six o'clock, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.