First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature

of the

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

Standing Committee

on Law Amendments

Chairperson Mr. Doug Martindale Constituency of Burrows

Vol. L No. 6 - 10 a.m., Wednesday, July 19, 2000 MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature

Member Constituency Political Affiliation

AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN,Nancy St. Vital N.D.P. ASHTON,Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. ASPER, Linda Riel N.D.P. BARRETT,Becky, Hon. Inkster N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew,Hon. Brandon East N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK,Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary,Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER,Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK,Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS,Harry Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU,David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILMON, Gary Tuxedo P.C. FRIESEN,Jean, Hon. Wolseley N.D.P. GERRARD,Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES,George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN,Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI,Bonn ie St. James N.D.P. - LATEalN,Os�,HmL The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU,Man;ei St. Norbert P.C. LEMIEUX, Ron,Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN,John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE,Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE,Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane,Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON,Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PENNER, Jim Steinbach P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK,Darren Lac du Bonnet P.C. REID,Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON,Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN,Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia N.D.P. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG,Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg,Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH,Joy Fort Garry P.C. SMITH,Scott Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON,Eric Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS,Stan Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TWEED,Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK,Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P. 107

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS

Wednesday, July 19, 2000

TIME - 10 a.m. Bill 32-The Victims' Rights Amendment Act LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba Bill 33-The Highway Traffic Amendment CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Doug Martindale and Consequential Amendments Act (Burrows)

ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM- 6 Bill 39-The Insurance Amendment Act

Members of the Committee present: Bill 40-The Business Names Registration Hon. Mr. Lemieux, Hon. Mr. Mackintosh Amendment, Corporations Amendment and Partnership Amendment Act Ms. Asper, Messrs. Jennissen, Loewen,

Maloway, Martindale, Penner (Steinbach), *** Pitura, Praznik, Rondeau

Mr. Chairperson: Will the Standing Committee WITNESSES: on Law Amendments please come to order. Bill 32-The Victims' Rights Amendment Act This morning the Committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 8, The Mr. Ken Mandzuik, Manitoba Enforcement of Judgments Conventions and Association for Rights and Liberties Consequential Amendments Act; Bill I 0, The Cooperatives Amendment Act; Bill 13, The Bill 33-The Highway Traffic Amendment Taxicab Amendment Act; Bill 22, The Court of and Consequential Amendments Act Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Mr. Josh Weinstein, Manitoba Act; Bill 23, The Jury Amendment Act; Bill 24, Association for Rights and Liberties The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act; Bill 25, The MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Interpretation and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 26, The Court of Queen's Bench Bill 8-The Enforcement of Judgments Amendment Act; Bill 27, The Correctional Conventions and Consequential Amend­ Services Amendment Act; Bill 28, The Northern ments Act Affairs Amendment and Planning Amendment Act; Bill 30, The Social Services Administration Bill I 0-The Cooperatives Amendment Act Amendment Act; Bill 32, The Victims' Rights Amendment Act; Bill 33, The Highway Traffic Bill 22-The Court of Queen's Bench Surro­ Amendment and Consequential Amendments gate Practice Amendment Act Act; Bill 34, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000; Bill 36, The Summary Convictions Bill 23-The Jury Amendment Act Amendment Act; Bill 39, The Insurance Amend­ ment Act; Bill 40, The Business Names Bill 24-The Personal Property Security Registration Amendment, Corporations Amend­ Amendment and Various Acts Amendment ment and Partnership Amendment Act, and that Act is all. 108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

We do have presenters who have registered as an interpretative guide by some judges, we to speak to Bill 32, The Victims' Rights would like to see some reference to the rights of Amendment Act, and Bill 33, The Highway the accused made in the preamble. In my brief I Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amend­ have suggested one change, just recognizing that ments Act. the rights of complainants and victims should be recognized, but at the same time we should pay It is the custom to hear public presentations heed to the rights of the accused. before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the Committee to hear public presentations on Bill Another concern that MARL has is in 32 and Bill 33 first? [Agreed] In what order do respect of the reference to victims throughout the you wish to hear the presentations? Act and in the Definitions section is that because many of the events that are discussed in the Bill An Honourable Member: Numerical. happen pre-conviction and even pre-charge, the use of "victim" is somewhat loaded. It almost Mr. Chairperson: Numerically. implies that a crime has been committed and it has been committed by a guilty individual. We Bill32-The Victims' Rights Amendment Act suggest that the use of a more neutral term 'complainant' for all events happening pre­ Mr. Chairperson: I will read the names of the conviction is going to remove that perception. persons who have registered to make public presentations this morning: Bill 32, Ken Section 4 talks about the right to give Mandzuik, representing the Manitoba Associa­ opinion on alternative measures and release, and tion for Rights and Liberties. this is discussing law enforcement agencies consulting with complainants and victims of Mr. Mandzuik. would you like to take the crime on whether people should be released and podium. Do you have copies of your brief? whether they should be sent to pre-charge alternative measures. Mr. Ken Mandzuik (Muitoba Association for Rights and Liberties): Yes, I do. The problem that we have with this is that by asking the law enforcement agencies, the Mr. Chairperson: The page will distribute. police, to consult with a complainant in these Please proceed. situations is fettering their discretion. This is the discretion that the Criminal Code has given the Mr. Mandzuik: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. peace officers, and to have the victims and Minister, Mr. Chair, honourable members. I am complainants potentially affect that discretion is happy to be here on behalf of the Manitoba in effect a fettering of that discretion. Association for Rights and Liberties to comment on Bill 32, the proposed changes to The Victims' I have enclosed a portion of section 497 of Rights Act. the Criminal Code. There are similar sections which say that the police must release an I will start by saying that MARL supports accused unless certain conditions are met. One efforts to keep all involved in the justice system of those things to consider is that the peace informed of their rights and educated, to keep officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it them informed about cases that are going on that is necessary in the public interest to keep an affect them. At the same time, we want to make accused in custody. So by asking the peace sure that the rights of the accused are fully officers to consider the victim's wishes or the protected, and the cases of Messrs. Milgaard, complainant's wishes, it is going contrary to the Morin, Marshall and Sophonow remind us how Criminal Code. So not only is there a fettering, important it is to protect the rights of the there is a potential paramountcy concern. accused. The same applies for alternative measures. The first point that I would like to address is There are provisions in the Criminal Code that the preamble, and because the preamble is used already say peace officers should consider the July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 interests of society and of the victim. So, again, from blood feuds, getting away from what this has already been addressed by federal Hobbes described as a "brutish, nasty and short" legislation and it is repetitive. I do not know that existence into a more civilized society, and by the alternative measures would be a para­ doing that we give it to the impartial king or the mountcy concern. It is not contradicting, but it is Crown. not necessary in any event. So MARL suggests that this section can just be removed. The Law Society of Manitoba in its code of conduct recognizes the Crown must remain Probably the largest concern that MARL has impartial. In chapter 9 governing the lawyer as with the bill concerns section 14, and that is the advocate, they have a commentary specifically right to be consulted about prosecution. I will relating to prosecutors, and that reads in part: repeat what I said earlier that MARL supports When engaged as a prosecutor, the lawyer's keeping complainants and victims fully informed prime duty is not to seek a conviction but to of their rights and keep them aware of what is present before the trial court all available happening as their cases progress through court, credible evidence relevant to the alleged crime in or cases that affect them progress through court. order that justice may be done through a fair trial I think to a very large extent, the Crowns are upon the merits. The prosecutor exercises the very good at keeping people informed. They will public function involving much discretion and do what they can to make sure that complainants power and must act fairly and dispassionately. are aware of their rights, the possibility to go to Victims Services and that sort of thing. I think The Supreme Court of Canada has recog­ they are doing a fine job in that and I think nized the prosecutor's job as well. In 1955, section 13 already speaks to keeping com­ Justice Rand wrote: It cannot be overemphasized plainants informed of their rights. that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction. It is to lay before thejury But when we get to section 14, it is saying what the Crown considers to be credible that prosecutors must consult complainants and evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a victims of crime, and the concern is the same as crime. The role of the prosecutor excludes any in section 4 that by asking the prosecutors to notion of winning or losing. His function is a consult with complainants, their discretion is matter of public duty than which in civil life going to be fettered. I have excerpted a there can be none charged with greater personal definition from the Oxford English Dictionary responsibility. It is to be performed with an on "consult." That definition reads: "To ask ingrained sense of a dignity, the seriousness and advice of, seek counsel from, to have recourse to the justness of judicial proceedings. for instruction, guidance or professional advice; also, to seek permission or approval from a * (10:10) person for a proposed action." So under that definition, under the common meaning of So the Crown has the legal and ethical "consult," it looks like the complainant has some responsibility to prosecute cases on behalf of the actual impact, has some say in what decisions community and not on behalf of a complainant the prosecutors are going to make. If the Crown's or a victim. By asking the Crown to consult with discretion is fettered, that is going to have an the complainant or victim, that role is being impact on the rights of the accused. changed. That role can come into conflict with the prosecutor's ethical duties, their professional Historically, the retribution for crime would duties. When this discretion has to be exercised come in the manner of blood feuds. If someone now, in light of the accountability and complaint did something to me, I and my family would go process, it is putting all the more pressure on the and exact revenge or get money out of that Crown to change their decisions or possibly have person. One of the great steps that society has their discretion exercised knowing that if they made is getting away from that, putting the exercise their discretion in a manner contrary to power to look after these wrongs, they put that the complainant's wishes, they could be called to power into the king. The king was in charge of task. They can have a report filed and say: Why protecting the public, so we are getting away did the Crown not oppose this bail? 110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

So it is MARL's respectful submission that comments regarding the right to be consulted on this section simply be removed. Section 13 prosecution. I take it changing the word covers keeping complainants informed of their "consult" to "advice" would in essence make rights, their rights to make victim impact section 14, in your opinion, the same as section statements. Their rights to be kept informed of 13? court appearances and that sort of thing, which is fine. MARL has no problem with that and Mr. Mandzuik: Yes. encourages that, but as soon as we get the victims involved to a point where they were Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mandzuik, sorry. I need going to affect how a case is prosecuted, the to recognize you every time. Crown is in effect becoming an advocate for the complainants and that historically is not the way Mr. Mandzuik: Yes. it has been done, and our submission should not be done. Mr. Praznik: So that in essence then, this section 14 is an add-on above the right to be Two other minor points that MARL wanted reasonably informed about a prosecution. to raise. Section 19 allows complainant to be informed of the general destination of a person Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mandzuik, sorry, I need after they have been released from custody. Our to recognize you every time. concern is that if someone has, to use the cliche, paid their debt to society, they should be allowed Mr. Mandzuik: Yes. to get back into society and do what they can to get set up and contribute to the community Mr. Praznik: Right, so that in essence then, this again. If their general destination is known to the section 14 is an add-on above the right to be complainant or the public more generally, that informed, reasonably informed, about a prose­ transition can be all the more difficult for the cution. It is now taking it one step further, where - offender. you have some role to play in exercising the discretion that has traditionally been for Lastly, on section 25, this gives right to free hundreds of years in our system, that of the and independent counsel for complainants Crown attorney. involved in a mill's application under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code. The concern here is Mr. Mandzuik: That is right. that nobody else gets free access to lawyers. The poor people in society that are accused of crimes Mr. Praznik: I also would like to refer you to apply for legal aid. If someone is wealthy section 7 of the Act, Right to information about enough to afford their own lawyer, they do not investigation of an offence. My reading of this get free counsel even if they are ultimately particular section indicates that the head of a law acquitted. So we do not think that it is enforcement agency has to provide that appropriate that this certain segment gets free information, and I quote, "unless doing so could legal consultation when nobody else does. They unreasonably delay or prejudice an investigation already have access to legal aid, and this section or prosecution or affect the safety or security of is not therefore necessary. That is my sub­ any person." mission, and I am available for any questions Members may have. There is no provision here for the discretion. My reading, at least, is that this is tested by an Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Just a outside objective inquiry as opposed to the view couple of questions. First of all, I think, you of the head of the police force and that it could have a very good assessment about the history of in fact interfere with, particularly if judged in our justice system. I would agree wholeheartedly hindsight, the conduct of an investigation. that the purpose of taking justice under the Would you share that view? power of the king was to insure that it did have impartiality and did not perpetuate blood feuds. I Mr. Mandzuik: I am actually not sure. That was am particularly interested in some of your not a section that had raised concerns with us. July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111

As I said before, keeping people informed of Mr. Jim Penner: I would like to think, then, cases that affect them is something that MARL that we are dealing with two separate issues supports and I do not think derogates from the here: one that deals with complainants and one rights of the accused. Whether it is an objective that deals with victims. test or a subjective test, I do not know that keeping people informed is necessarily going to Mr. Mandzuik: I think it all comes down to the affect the rights of the accused. same thing: keeping people informed, which is what the bill does. If we keep people informed, Mr. Praznik: So I take it that your objections then it is fine, but the problem is, when you call then could be summarized by indicating that them victims before someone has been con­ portions of this bill, you are not opposed to the victed, then we are putting a skew or a spin on rights of a victim or complainant to have the whole thing, but it is the same thing for both. information about what is going on in the process, the right for restitution, the right to be Mr. Praznik: Just on the same point, and this able to recover property, et cetera, but where was my last area of questioning. Is the concern MARL will disagree is where it steps over the here one that should the complainant, the person line and gives that complainant or victim the who has indicated or claimed that a crime has right to have a role in the exercise of what, for been committed when in fact one has not, when hundreds of years, has been the discretion of the an individual is abusing the justice system by Crown attorney. filing a false complaint, is your concern that that would give that individual access to the Mr. Mandzuik: That is a fair summary, yes. prosecution, the right to advise in a prosecution, when in fact that individual may in fact be the Mr. Praznik: One last question, just looking perpetrator of the whole event by filing a false through my notes-if I may just defer to the claim-and that happens from time to time-that Member for Steinbach for a moment, then I will offence has occurred? collect my thoughts for the last question. Mr. Mandzuik: I guess it does happen some­ Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Mandzuik, in times. That is what mischief is for, and I think your submission, you raised questions about the the police have been vigilant on laying mischief use of the word "victim." I was just wondering if charges in those kind of circumstances. But that you would explain to us when does a com­ is not a primary concern. The primary concern is plainant become a victim. that any victim or complainant has the ability to affect the Crown's discretion. Mr. Mandzuik: In our submission a complainant becomes a victim once an accused * (10:20) has been found guilty of an offence. Before that, a crime has not been committed in a court of Mr. Praznik: And what underlies that, of Jaw. Until then, an accused is presumed inno­ course, I mean there are two concerns, gathering cent. By calling someone a victim, that from your presentation, that underlines that. One presumption of innocence can be affected. is that the traditional impartial prosecution traditionally held by the Crown is now interfered Mr. Jim Penner: So would you suggest, then, with. It is no longer so impartial; that is one. Part that the Bill be named a complainants' bill of of that real concern, of course, is the influence rights, a complainants' rights amendment act? on the victim/complainant when the crime, whether it was committed, in fact, or the extent Mr. Mandzuik: That is getting into areas of to which it was committed, has not yet been maybe policy and politics that are not my place adjudicated. That would be really the underlying to comment on, but the specific sections them­ part, one of the two reasons why this would be selves that refer to victims in circumstances pre­ worthy of opposition. conviction, we submit, should be changed to complainant. Mr. Mandziuk: Yes, that is right. 112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice the victim in consultation is more than a voice. It and Attorney General): Thanks very much, is not a veto. We have consistently said it is a Mr. Mandziuk, and I am pleased to see MARL voice, not a veto. Prosecutorial discretion still participating in these committee hearings. It remains and the discretion of law enforcement has been one of the most long-standing and agencies remains. What the difference is, and it consistent providers of advice to the Standing is a significant difference, is that they will now Committees, and I appreciate that. be attuned to the concerns of victims and perhaps even more importantly they will be As you may be aware, I have had a long attuned to evidence that may be in the hands of history with MARL as vice-president and, more victims. I look back at the Bauder case, for relevantly, with Patients Rights Committee for example, the 12-year-old babysitter that was six years before I was elected. My experience in raped by the person she worked for. There was a dealing with the issues of patients' rights and the plea bargain entered into, completely out of the need to adjust the health care system to be more knowledge of the victim, the victim's family. patient-centred approximates the interest that I There was information about the offender that have developed in victims over my years in would have made a significant difference to the opposition, and the need to re-jig the justice plea bargaining and to the disposition of the system in a better way around the needs of court had it been known to the prosecutor. victims. I have thought back on many of the lessons that I learned with MARL over those We see the consultation as strengthening years. cases, strengthening insights, and strengthening the insights on the part of the victim about how I commend you on your paper and the work the justice system works. Right now, aside from of your committee. I can say that the issues that the media and people who go down to the you have raised here have come up in courthouse, there are only jurors who really get discussions with stakeholders and partners, staff, to look inside the black box. We think now that - as we have developed the legislation, both this will certainly make a change in culture. before I became government and after, more particularly. So, in answer to your concern that well, yes, being kept informed is a good step forward, we I can respond to some of them now, and I are saying no. We are going two steps forward. might have some questions, but first, in terms of We are going beyond the information stage, to using the word "complainant" versus "victim." the consultation stage, but again it is a voice, not The word "victim" has been universally accepted a veto. as being an aptly suitable describer of someone who is subjected to an alleged crime, whether The comment that the Crown has a that is proven or not eventually. If we were to responsibility on behalf of the community and change the terminology, I am afraid it would be not on behalf of the complainant though is a our view that the rights that would be available notion that we reject. The complainant is a part here could only flow after a conviction. In other of the community, is a part of the public, is a words, one would have to prove beyond a part of the state, if you will, and is the most reasonable doubt that there was an offender and significant and affected party that is a part of the that a crime had been committed. community. Therefore, there is a role accom­ modating the concerns of the victim as much as Your concern about fettering the discretion legally available. What we see here is not of either a law enforcement agency or a undoing any rights of offenders, but rather prosecutor is one that we have attempted to rebalancing and strengthening rights of victims. recognize in the Act. You will note in the The Charter of Rights will remain, of course, for preamble, of course, that this new regime is offenders. within the general context of the law and the role of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. So I think that generally responds to issues There is nothing in this legislation from our raised. I might just add that we will consider the interpretation which would say that the role of submission further, and we will, in the time July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 113 leading up to the report stage consideration of fettered. And while the victim is part of the Bill. I think that the concerns raised here will community, the Crowns are not there to act as an also be concerns that will continue to be voiced advocate for that victim. That is exactly why we as we move now into the implementation stage, have vested power in the Crown to prosecute which will require, I think, some significant criminal offences. This is getting away from the education, if you will, fo r justice officials, for a vengeance and vendetta. culture change. That, as the Justice critic has noted in the House, is a real challenge. Yes, * (10:30) there have been changes made. It is part of a continuum, if you will, because we have had Another point is: What happens when there significant movement, fo r example, in dealing is a crime where the complainant or the victim with family violence cases and the more serious does not want to get involved? What happens if cases in the courts. It has been sometimes on a you have got a family that is especially vocal hit-or-miss basis. My sense is that prosecutors and outraged, as they are entitled to be? Why and law enforcement personnel are very eager to should that offender be treated anymore harshly move with this new legislation. They just need to than another offender accused of a similar crime know that we are there to support them with where there are no complainants or victims on education and to afford them the time to fu lfil the scene advocating fo r harsher prosecutions? their new duties. So, if you have any comment to So those are the points that I wanted to raise. that and in closing, thank you very much fo r a Thank you. very considered presentation. Mr. Praznik: Just rising out of the exchange, Mr. Chairperson: Does Mr. Mandzuik wish to one question that comes to me: Is your concern respond? with the interference in the traditional discretion of the Crown made even more or even deeper by Mr. Mandzuik: Yes. I thank the Honourable the fact that we have had for some time, in Minister for his comments. Just in brief Manitoba, zero tolerance policies that have response, we are not asking that. We do not required the Crown to prosecute even if they did submit that our changes to terminology victim not believe they had a case to prosecute? into complainant fo r certain circumstances renders the ability to keep informed and Mr. Mandziuk: That is not something that is in educated about cases that affect people is only the Bill and something that is worth considering going to apply after someone has been and would be a concern. convicted. If the complainant has that right, if it has changed the complainant, nothing else is Mr. Mackintosh: Just picking up on one point, going to change. Their rights will remain the you talk about vengeance or whether the victim same, and they will still have the rights to be could skew a case. The conviction, of course, informed. So I do not know that the concernthat will depend on the law and the evidence and it would apply only after conviction would prosecution's policies. At sentencing, however, necessarily be a true concern. as is currently the situation, the pre-sentence report and the offender have the right to put As far as the fettering of discretion, you said before the court evidence about the individual, it was intended to give complainants a voice but and I have seen cases where there have been 20 not a veto. The problem is that voice is affecting or 30 letters of commendation, recommendations the Crown's discretion. Historically, the Crown about an individual, about the sterling character has to be impartial; this is what has taken us out of an offender and how the court should be of the state of nature, out of the nasty, brutish lenient. Meanwhile, the victim and the impact on and short existence, and so on. The discretion the family, perhaps a generation or two of the and the impartiality of the Crown are being victim's family, are left out. I see it as part of the affected. It might not be a veto, but it is still a corrections system, the need for a message to go voice that can influence the Crowns, and when to offenders and the particular offender in a case the Crowns are threatened with complaints being about the reality of a crime and a wrongdoing, made against them, that discretion is going to be the impact on the community, on an individual, 114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

because that, perhaps more than most other Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Weinstein, please correction measures, can make a difference, can proceed. drive home to the offender that he or she has hurt someone, sometimes irreparably, that there Mr. Weinstein: Mr. Chair, the Honourable was a consequence to the action. It was not a Minister of Justice, I am speaking on behalf of score in a video game. It was not a body count in the Manitoba Association fo r Rights and a movie. This is real. I think the court has been Liberties with respect to Bill 33. too anesthetized with the system to which we have grown accustomed. Let me start by saying that MARL supports and acknowledges effo rts with respect to I think that this is exciting. I think it is a regulation of the highways to keep them safe and bold move forward, and I might just add that we, also with respect to efforts to combat the effe ct in the legislation, have put in a clause that that drunk drivers have on the safety of the requires a review of the legislation and its public. However, this is my submission, that this impact within five years of it coming into fo rce. must not be done at the expense of individual So we may be back again revisiting how well we rights, of an accused right. have done and how our perspectives have borne out or have not. The brief that I have submitted deals with the Bill in chronological order, but I want to go Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mandziuk. out of order from that brief and deal with what I Before I call the next presenter, Mr. Weinstein, think is probably the most significant point with who is also registered, I need to take care of respect to this bilL some housekeeping duties that I forgot to earlier. If there is anyone else in the audience that would Firstly, dealing with section 242.1(7.1) of like to register or who has not yet registered and The Highway Traffic Act, as proposed, that is would like to make a presentation, would you dealing with the periods of impoundment, which - please register at the back of the room. Just a are relative to the concentration of alcohol in the reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are blood. I want to just start by saying that MARL required. If you need assistance with photo­ opposes any type of pre-conviction impound­ copying, please see the Clerk of the Committee. ment of vehicles. As we submit, it violates the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Before we proceed with the next section 11 of the Charter and also is a violation presentation, is it the will of the Committee to of the right to be secured against cruel and set a time limit? No. [Agreed] unusual punishment. It is not just the stigma that attaches to that; it is a significant Charter right, Did the Committee wish to indicate how late which any individual has the right to see that it is it is willing to sit this morning? I have heard honoured in society. twelve o'clock. Is that agreed? [Agreed] We will sit till 12 noon. With respect to the periods of impoundment, you will note that there is an increase. The Bill33-The Highway Traffic Amendment periods of impoundment can go anywhere from and Consequential Amendments Act 30 to 180 days, and that is dealing with all subsequent subsections as proposed. I would Mr. Chairperson: I will now call the next submit there is really no other argument to make, presenter, Mr. Josh Weinstein, representing the other than this cannot be anything but a fo rm of Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties punishment. You have the increased alcohol in on Bill 33. blood concentrations, giving an increase in the period of impoundment. Again, this is before an Mr. Weinstein, please proceed. individual is convicted of any crime. So it is not just that it is tantamount to punishment. I submit Mr. Josh Weinstein (Manitoba Association of it is punishment, and it is pre-conviction punish­ Rights and Liberties): Good morning. ment. July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115

The subsequent subsections, section I am submitting, obviously, on behalf of 242.1(7 .1.1), that deals with the circumstance MARL, but being a member of the criminal where there is an increase in the period of defence bar, I can tell you that this is going to be impoundment for situations where the vehicle fo dder for defence attorneys. It is going to be had been previously seized in the last five years easy fo dder, because I would submit it is not with respect to that similar type of offence. I going to survive a Charter challenge because of would submit that that section does not provide those proposed amendments offending sections for the fact that a previous seizure, a previous 11 and 12 of the Charter. impoundment of a vehicle, may have been revoked. I just want to deal with section 264(1.1.1). That is the automatic suspension fo r fa ilure to It may have been a situation where a peace stop fo r a peace officer-and remember that is officer released the vehicle-and we are talking upon conviction. As proposed, the impoundment going five years back to a situation where or the period of the suspension, a two-year for someone is taken in, they are given a reading of the first offence which is a greater period of their blood sample. It is about .08. They go suspension than that of a first time, a person who through the court system. They are acquitted or is convicted for the first time of drunk driving. I charges are stayed. Subsequently, we find would submit in that circumstance when you put ourselves five years later, they are picked up it into that light, and remember, the period of again, and now there is an increase in the suspension has been increased in the Criminal impoundment because all the section says is that Code for one year, which runs parallel to The if there was a previous impoundment of that Highway Traffic Act. So it is a one-year suspen­ vehicle. So it does not provide fo r situations sion for driving over .08 or driving impaired. where someone may have had charges stayed or that they were acquitted of the charges. That again, I would submit, is cruel and unusual Dealing with the offence of stopping for a punishment, and with the greatest of respect, peace officer, there is no minimum penalty with seems somewhat draconian. respect to that offence, and the maximum is the same with respect to driving over .08, a 5-year It gets even more so when the alcohol jail sentence. So in that situation, I would say concentration increases when it is a second and that is a violation of section 12 of the Charter. subsequent seizure and impoundment. If you are picked up now and your reading is 160 or over, The second and subsequent offence then the period is increased to 180 days. So that indicated in the proposed amendment is even is six months, and remember, you could have more oppressive. Second and subsequent convic­ previously had charges stayed against you. You tion, seven years, and second or subsequent could have been acquitted. You may ultimately conviction with respect to driving over .08 does be acquitted of the charge that you presently not even carry that length. I believe it is in the have with respect to your reading, but still your range of three years with respect to a second or vehicle is seized for 180 days. subsequent offence fo r driving over .08. So to suspend someone for driving fo r a seven-year Now, there have been challenges previously. period, more than double that of a drunk driver, I I believe there was a challenge in the Manitoba submit is nothing but cruel and unusual Court of Appeal that dealt with an individual punishment. whose licence was suspended. That dealt with a challenge under sections 7 and 8, life, liberty and I would submit with respect to conditions of security of the person and unreasonable search impounding a vehicle or surrendering a licence and seizure, but there has not been a challenge with respect to these matters, those are matters with respect to this or similar circumstances that which can be left and should be left to a trial I know with respect to the presumption of judge to determine because as it stands now, the innocence and cruel and unusual punishment. police officer has very little discretion, if at all, with respect to the return of the vehicle. There is * (10:40) provision for allowing a return of a vehicle if the 116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

officer is of the opinion that the vehicle was not be able to pay the prescribed fee. They have stolen at the time that the offence was com­ a vehicle, but they may not be able to afford that mitted, that it was committed by someone else. application fee with respect to an application to have their licence returned which is the first step Just dealing with other sections, section to get the vehicle back. They should be entitled 242(1) is Detention of motor vehicle. That is the to make that application if they have a court date foundation section: Detention of motor vehicle already with respect to a charge of driving by peace officer. This section does not provide impaired or driving over .08. for a police officer requiring to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence I just want to reiterate what the thrust of the has been committed. He just has to have reason. submission is with respect to those increased With the greatest of respect to our police force, periods of impoundment because we have to there may be reasons which are not valid ones. remember that an accused is presumed innocent There could be a variety of reasons, but there before the law. There really is no other may not be reasonable grounds. That is explanation with respect to those increases in the something that has been put in other sections not period of impoundment, other than that it is only of The Highway Traffic Act, but of the punishment. MARL does not support that Criminal Code, so that judges, trial judges can proposed amendment, and subject to any scrutinize as to whether, in fact, someone had questions to his committee, that is my reasonable and probable grounds. Without that submission. section, that is obviously going to be a minefield with respect to search and seizure provisions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Weinstein.

More of a logistical point. but it is a point Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice that I think this committee has to consider is and Attorney General): Thanks, Mr. with respect to section 242.1(6), and that is - Weinstein, I think you are a good defence dealing with issues to be determined when the lawyer, and I know that these arguments have driver is the owner. That is an issue where you been advanced for some time and will continue make an application in front of a justice with to be. I will just put you on notice, though, that respect to the return of your vehicle. There are we might have to have you back here, because no provisions allowing you to present evidence this is just the start. Just to use that phrase "cruel to the contrary with respect to your charge of and unusual punishment," that is what is driving over .08. You are not even entitled to happening to Manitobans right now. We have give that sort of evidence because the law does got to get drunk drivers off the road. I think the not provide for that. public, actually, is ahead of legislators on this generally. I think Manitoba has got to ensure that It does with respect to an application to get it provides a leadership role. We have a broad your licence back, where you have to give a fee social objective here that is absolutely critical to to have your hearing. If your licence is then the well-being of this province and its citizens. returned, then the return of the licence leads to the return of your vehicle. I would submit if you are already in court and you are entitled to make The purpose of the legislation is not an application in front of a justice with respect to punishment. That is the role of the Criminal the return of your vehicle and that there are Code. The role of this legislation is to make provisions with respect to driving disqualified Manitobans safer and get these drunks off the and for a judge to make a determination about road. We have to be more inventive, I think, in returning the vehicle on that issue, then there how we can do that. This moves it along. So the should be the same with respect to providing intention, of course, here is not to invade in any evidence to the contrary on a charge of .08. way the federal criminal law and all of the checks that are available, the presumption of That can be provided. There are experts' innocence and the other arguments. This is an reports that can be provided, and I would say administrative scheme by the Province to help that there are those in society where they might Manitobans increase our safety. July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 117

* (10:50) Well, I believe in a system of justice that has a balance, and I gather the presenter does as If a challenge is coming in the courts, so be well. The presenter has come here with some it. I know they have arisen from time to time. concerns about the application of the Charter of We have, at the departmental level, reviewed the Rights and Freedoms, and we do know, having provisions with a view to determining whether been part of an administration that brought in there is anything offensive to the Charter, and administrative penalties in these particular areas that test was passed. I just want to say, in terms that did survive the Charter, that there is a of some of the specifics here, where one blows balance that can be maintained. over .08, for example, that is the evidence. As a result, administrative consequences will flow My question comes off the point that the from that. The presumption of innocence is Attorney General raised about the .08, that that another matter, under the fe deral scheme. That is is all the evidence you need. Just for his infor­ our view generally. The issue of evidence to the mation, I can remember as a law student in court contrary, that role there, certainly evidence to the when an individual on the machine had read contrary would be one ground fo r appeal on a over .08, was taken immediately from the police revocation. station to the hospital, did a blood test that came back with a zero blood alcohol content, and it I just want to go to the automatic suspension turned out there was an error in the machine. fo r failure to stop fo r a police officer. We just had a recent tragedy in Manitoba that fo llowed If I am not mistaken, I think that is some of from an incident, which I understand was fleeing what our presenter is saying in the presentation, of an officer, at least was the allegation. The and I would like him to clarify that the law reason fo r the consequences here is recognizing should provide, where there are circumstances the significant hazard that this poses, particularly where a justification, a defence can be made, to to residents, but also of course to those involved ensure that those administrative penalties are not and to the threat to law enforcement objectives. applied. Is that one of the arguments that the It is important that there be a greater sanction. presenter is making to this committee today? One, hopefully, will think twice. I think the administrative law has to provide a message. It Mr. Weinstein: When I heard the Honourable can never be more advantageous, in terms of Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) talking consequences, to flee an officer, than face up to about how you have the reading and then you the law. have the administrative consequences, the administrative consequences should not come With those comments, we will fu rther until after conviction, and that is the point, consider your submission and take those into because there are circumstances and there are account as the Bill progresses. many times when convictions either are overturned or an acquittal is entered or a stay of Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): I notice proceedings is entered, and it is not just about the Attorney General now has not only become the reading. It may be about the conduct of the the Attorney General but also the courts in our police with respect to the incident. It may be that province when he says that he has reviewed the they passed the prescribed time of being able to Charter arguments and he has passed judgment, take a sample, or it was taken outside of the time so all Manitobans should sleep well at night. I without the consent. would just say to him in his comments that the Charter is something that will be tested in court, There are a number of issues, so that we are and we have a presenter here today-and I have giving consequences immediately which are-1 to say, thank goodness for defence attorneys. I would submit, consequences do happen. They mean, there are some, perhaps in my party, happen all the time in bail court when you are in certainly the Attorney General, who may believe front of a judge, and the issue is conditions with that we do not need defence attorneys and we do respect to not having contact or communication not need rights because the courts always get the with a complainant, to not attend at his or her right person and prosecute or persecute. residence, but those are issues of bail. They are 118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19,2000 issues for a judge to consider on bail. To give the hearing officer who deals with that auto­ police this power of what is an immediate matically. It may be that it is some time down consequence which is a form of punishment is the road, but you deal with that issue. In similar different, and I submit in the circumstances it is circumstances, a car is a lot more important than not appropriate. I would submit it is a violation one having a weapon. If any scheme has to be of an individual's rights. put in at all, then there should be an automatic hearing. It should not be something that an Mr. Praznik: First of all, to the presenter, I individual has to pay for, or something that may recognize the arguments you are making. I do have to be of the instance of an accused. But if know you are aware that this legislature over the anything, there should be that automatic hearing last decade has accepted an administrative with respect to analyzing the administrative scheme with respect to drinking while driving consequences in frontof a judge. and has established outside of the criminal law an administrative scheme based on the principle It is done like that with respect to firearms. that driving is a privilege. Certain things being a A judge can make any disposition. He can say: I breach of that privilege resulted in the sus­ want you to leave your weapon with a friend for pension of the right to drive and other penalties, the period, until this matter is dealt with, that the and that has to date, it is my understanding, been RCMP are going to take custody of the weapon, upheld by the court. So there is some difference. or the police are going to take possession of the weapon, or the individual may get the weapon But within that scheme, and I recognize that back because it has nothing at all to do with the the Association and the presenter are arguing offence alleged. So, if there is any administrative that that is not probably acceptable. But having scheme that has to be put in place, then there said that and recognized that, looking at an should be an automatic right to a hearing. administrative scheme, within an administrative scheme, I am asking the presenter does he Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I would believe that it is appropriate that there have to be ask, given your concerns about individuals who mechanisms for an individual to be able to make have, for example, been acquitted and being the case to ensure the administrative penalties caught in this second seizure provision, what are not wrongfully applied, that if there are specific change would you recommend to avoid defences available, that the automatic application this, that instead of it being, as it were, second of the administrative penalties can be addressed seizure, that there be a demonstrated conviction under certain circumstances. For example, the as a result of the first incident? case I mentioned, a faulty breathalyser machine, where the individual had a blood test within an Mr. Weinstein: I think that with respect to an hour indicating that he had a zero blood alcohol issue where an individual has been acquitted or level, those types of things. So, recognizing your charges have been stayed, or a previous first argument, asking you now to look at if the impoundment has been revoked, that is starting courts and this legislature accept an with sections, I believe, 242.1 of 7 .1.1 which administrative scheme, within that admini­ deals with if there was a previous seizure and strative scheme would you argue that there has impoundment of a vehicle, that it bumps up the to be a means available, on whether it be a rare time of what the present impoundment is going occasion or a regular occasion for an individual to be. That is where the concern is, especially for to be able to address the penalities where they someone who has been acquitted for an offence have an argument that they are being wrongfully previously, or that the impoundment was applied? revoked because that section does not provide for that circumstance. So you have an individual Mr. Weinstein: Let me answer that by way of who is now presumed innocent and is picked up, an analogy. If I am charged with an offence that and they look backwards and they have no idea deals with a weapon, or in a domestic situation if the person was acquitted or not of that offence, where I have possession of a firearm, I am given but it just shows up that there was a seizure of the right to a hearing, and it is automatic. You the vehicle, and that is enough. So you have not - appear in gun disposition court, and it is before a been convicted of anything and your vehicle is July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 119 now seized, I believe it is for a period of 90 opmton between the accused and the police days. If the new reading that you get picked up officer as to what the circumstances were? on, I believe it is with respect to a reading of 160 or over, it is 180 days. That is six months, and Mr. Weinstein: I believe this section indicates, you have not been convicted of anything. upon conviction of someone for flight, under section 249. 1 of the Criminal Code. So, when Mr. Gerrard: In order to improve the section, you are dealing with a convicted person, there you would suggest that this refer only to may be a spectrum of how serious, or it may be a individuals who have been convicted on the mitigating circumstance although conviction was basis of the first incident? entered, there was a mitigating circumstance; there may have been an aggravating one. Upon Mr. Weinstein: Or that either providing a conviction, and I do not disagree with respect to subsequent subsection indicating that that the seriousness of the offence, but so is drunk section will not apply to those who have been driving. Drunk driving, you have a minimum previously acquitted of an offence or a stay of specified penalty, whereas Parliament has said proceedings was entered, or that there was a with respect to flight there is not. Someone can revocation of the impoundment, or that the get a conditional discharge, an absolute dis­ vehicle was returned, which the police have the charge, which is not a conviction. Those are not discretion to do. If they believe that the vehicle dispositions available to someone convicted of was stolen, they canjust hand it back to you. It is drunk driving. In circumstances, either they are still going to show up that the vehicle was seized equally as serious, or that flight is less serious, and impounded. because Parliament has indicated so. It is very difficult to get around the fact that the suspension for drunk driving, which I would * (11 :00) submit probably causes a lot more injury, or maybe death, in the circumstances, than flight Mr. Gerrard: So there would be at least a carries with it, suspensions that are less than couple of ways of approaching this to resolve the those with respect to the proposed amendment issue and to do it quite nicely so that such people regarding the issue of flight. are not caught in this problem and at the same time that would answer the problem under the Mr. Gerrard: One approach, which you recom­ Canadian Charter of Rights. Is that correct? mended, would be to have penalties which are equivalent to that for drunk driving, so that both Mr. Weinstein: It would, and it can be done would then be seen as very serious offences, but either by way of subsection or within a section would not be an indication that flight was more itself saying where an individual has previously serious than drunk driving. Is that what you are been convicted of an offence and has previously recommending? had their vehicle seized, and with respect to that offence. Mr. Weinstein: I think I am going to leave the issue of what may be the appropriate period of Mr. Gerrard: Let me move to the section on suspension in your hands. It may be something flight from a police officer and your concern that that you may want to leave discretionary because the penalties here are quite harsh. I think that, there are a number of circumstances where it generally speaking, citizens in Manitoba would may be more mitigating or aggravating in the warrant or would feel that there is a need to have circumstances. If it is the will that there is going stiff penalties where individuals are truly flying to have to be a suspension put in place, in these from a police officer. On the other hand, I can circumstances, based on the numbers proposed see that there may be circumstances where the in this amendment, of the two years on a first person was not aware that the police officer was offence and seven on a second, and subsequent, trying to flag them down for some reason or with the greatest of respect, are draconian when another. Can you comment on situations of flight compared. That is all my point is, when from a police officer and whether there are, compared to all other offences, and if a under some circumstances, differences of suspension has to be put in place, then either it 120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

can remain discretionary or it has to remain ask if he would be so kind as to have those two relative with respect to other offences, that the bills put over until the committee-! think it was HT A already has suspension provisions in called fo r next week. With respect to the Justice relation to those offences. bills, if we could proceed perhaps in-1 look to the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner) who Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard. has a number of bills here. I think he had a meeting at quarter to twelve, so we might want Mr. Gerrard: No, I am finished. to deal with his bills first and then the Justice bills. Mr. Jim Penner: I would like to ask Mr. Weinstein, our presenter: Although I support the Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Praznik. It intent of this bill, does he know of any other has been recommended that we proceed with the jurisdiction where a similar bill, laws have been Justice bills except for 32 and 33. You are also imposed? recommending that we deal with which Minister's bills first? Mr. Weinstein: I am afraid I do not. An Honourable Member: Consumer and Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. Corporate Affairs. That concludes the list of presenters I have before me this morning. Are there any other Mr. Chairperson: It has been recommended persons in attendance who wish to make their that we proceed with Consumer and Corporate presentation? Seeing none, is it the will of the Affairs bills next. Is that the will of the committee to proceed with detailed clause-by­ committee? [Agreed] clause consideration ofbills 8, 10, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 40, and Are there any presenters? I guess there are if yes, how do you wish to proceed this no presenters. So we will call the Minister up to - morning? the front of the table, and we will do clause by clause, beginning with Bill 10, The Cooperatives Mr. Praznik: I speak with respect to the Justice Amendment Act. bills fo r which I am critic. I have colleagues here who are critics in other areas. I would ask, if the * (1 1 :10) Attorney General would agree, given that we have heard some very interesting presentations Bill lO-The Cooperatives Amendment Act today, if we could put over Bills 32 and 33 until the next sitting of this committee. There are Mr. Chairperson: Does the Minister respon­ some amendments we would like to consider sible fo r Bill 10 have an opening statement? that have arisen out of the presentations. With respect to the other justice bills, fo r which I am Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer responsible, there are a fe w issues around a fe w and Corporate Affairs): Yes, I do. amendments, but I think we will see relatively speedy passage of them today. It has been Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed. custom of these committees, on occasion, after we have heard presenters that have made some Mr. Lemieux: In order to move things along recommendations, that we have allowed a day or expeditiously, I think I will pass on my com­ two before we have done the clause by clause to ments at this point. give some thought and consideration to their presentations. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does the critic from the Official Opposition have an I know the Member for Thompson (Mr. opening statement? Ashton) often made that point in his role as House Leader, and given that I would like the Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Bill 10, The opportunity fo r my colleagues and I to have a Cooperatives Amendment Act, is amending a chance to caucus on these presentations, I would large bill that was introduced on July 1, 1999, July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121

brought into fo rce on July 1, 1999. That bill, Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Chairman, because of the size of it, had weaknesses, which this is viewed mainly as a housekeeping bill that Bill 10 has addressed. I think this is a good piece will help tighten up the Act and make some of legislation. It addresses small concerns. It is technical clarifications. I do fe el that it is not often that we have to have a bill that important, as is the Act, because the registration addresses the termination of membership, but of personal property as security is an important there is nothing wrong with that. factor in today's economy. We have previously spoken to this bill, and we believe that it should I would say that the Bill adequately fa ce the test of time and be passed. addresses the concerns of the definition of an auditor. The goal of members is to ensure that Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Member. there is integrity and accurate financial dis­ During the consideration of a Bill, the preamble closure of financial statements to members of and the title are postponed until all other clauses cooperatives. This is in the interest of con­ have been considered in their proper order. Is sumers. So, I would recommend that we pass the there agreement fr om the Committee to consider Bill. clauses in blocks? [Agreed]

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Member. Clauses 1 and 2-pass; clauses 3 to 5-pass; During the consideration of a bill, the preamble clauses 6, 7(1), 7(2), 8 and 9-pass; clauses 10, and title are postponed until all other clauses 11(1), 11(2), and 12(1)-pass; clauses 12(2), have been considered in their proper order. If 13(1), 13(2), 14 and IS-pass; clauses 16, 17(1), there is agreement from the Committee, the 17(2), 18 and 19(1)-pass; clauses 19(2), 19(3), Chair will call clauses in blocks that conform to 19(4), 19(5)-pass; clauses 20, 21(1) and 21(2)­ pages, with the understanding that we will stop pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. The Bill be at any particular clause or clauses where reported. members may have comments, questions or amendments to propose. Is that agreed? Bill 39-The Insurance Amendment Act [Agreed] Mr. Chairperson: We will next consider Bill Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4-pass; Clauses 5 to 8- 39, The Insurance Amendment Act. Does the pass; Clauses 9 to 13-pass; Clauses 14(1), 14(2), Minister have an opening statement? 14(3), 15, 16, and 17(1)-pass; Clauses 17(2), 17(3), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23-pass; Clauses Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer 24 and 25-pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. Bill and Corporate Affairs): Yes, I do. Mr. Chair, be reported. on this particular bill, I would like to make a short statement. Bill 24-The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Bill 39 has three main purposes. First, it is to Act enhance consumer protection fo r purchases of insurance; second, it is to make it easier fo r Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with insurance companies to do business in Manitoba Bill 24, The Personal Property Security by repealing legislation which has become Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act. outdated in today's marketplace realities; and Does the Minister have an opening statement? third, it is to provide a more effective licence appeal process. With regard to this bill, I know Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer that my critic certainly knows the importance of and Corporate Affairs): Once again, in order to this and has made comments to that effect and deal with this expeditiously, I would like to pass, realizes that this bill is very, very good consumer certainly, on making any remarks at this point. legislation.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does So, certainly just on that note, I know that, the critic fr om the Official Opposition have an to facilitate fa ster co-ordination of appeals, the opening statement? Bill makes some changes to the structure and 122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

process for establishing hearing panels of the and the title are postponed until all other clauses insurance agents and adjusters Licensing Appeal have been considered in their proper order. Is Board. The process is also added to allow an there agreement of the Committee to proceed in application to be made to lift the licence blocks of clauses? [Agreed] suspension until appeal of the suspension has been heard. Clauses I and 2-pass; clauses 3 to 1 0-pass; clause 11-pass; clauses 12 to 17(1}-pa ss; But, in general, there are the three main clauses 17(2) and 17(3}-pass; clauses 17(4) to points with regard to this bill, primarily being 18(3}-pass; clauses 18(4) to 20(2}-pass; clauses consumer protection with regard to purchase of 20(3) and 21-pass; clauses 22( 1) and 22(2}­ insurance. On that note, Mr. Chair, I just would pass; clauses 22(3) to 22(6}-pass; clauses 22(7) like to conclude my remarks. and 22(8}-pass; clauses 22(9) and 23-pass; clause 24-pass. Clause 24 caries over to page Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does 20. Clause 25-pass; clause 26-pass; clauses 27 the critic from the Official Opposition have an to 30(2}-pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. Bill be opening statement? reported.

Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): The Insurance Amendment Act, Bill 39, recognizes the need to * (1 1 :20) continually make adjustments as the methods of doing business are constantly changing. The Bill 40--The Business Names Registration Insurance Act is certainly an important piece of Amendment, Corporations Amendment legislation for all Manitobans. I do think it is and Partnership Amendment Act unfortunate the reputation that is often given to sellers of insurance because they provide such an important service. I know from personal Mr. Chairperson: Next is Bill 40, The Business experience, the positive relationship I have with Names Registration Amendment, Corporations the firm that handles our business. Amendment and Partnership Amendment Act. Does the Minister have an opening statement? The Bill does, however, I think, recognize the reality of the insurance business in today's Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Consumer world. It addresses issues such as allowing and Corporate Affairs): In order to expedite agents to carry on other businesses under certain matters, at this time, I think I will pass on my restrictions. This seems only equitable as other remarks with regard to Bill 40. areas of financial services are opened up to banks, credit unions and trust companies. As well, the Bill ensures that agents, brokers and Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does adjusters carry liability insurance. I also note the critic from the Official Opposition have an that the Bill will tighten the screening require­ opening statement? ments for those seeking a licence through a sponsoring insurer. Through my contacts with Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Members of the agents and with individuals in the Insurance Opposition view this bill as a step which is Council, I am advised that this bill largely meets basically aimed at improving the manner in with the approval of the industry. It is meant to which the Government provides information to improve the operation of the industry as well as the public. It is an intention that we support, and benefit the purchasers of insurance and the loved we would encourage this government to do more ones who benefit from it. of that. Thank you very much.

So, with this in mind, I am prepared to move Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Member. this bill along. During the consideration of a bill, the preamble and the title are postponed until all other clauses Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Member. have been considered. Is it agreed that we During the consideration of a bill, the preamble consider blocks of clauses? [Agreed] July 19,2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 123

Clauses 1 and 2-pass; clauses 3(1) to 5- Bill 22-The Court of Queen's Bench pass; clauses 6 to 11-pass; clauses 12 to 16- Surrogate Practice Amendment Act pass; clauses 17 to 19-pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. Bill be reported. Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with Bill 22, The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate I would like to call the Minister of Justice Practice Amendment Act. Does the Minister (Mr. Mackintosh) back to the table. We will now responsible fo r Bill 22 have an opening consider the Justice bills, with the exception of statement? 32 and 33, which are postponed to a future meeting of this committee. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Essentially what I will Bill 8-The Enforcement of Judgments do is just respond to remarks of the critic at Conventions and Consequential second reading. Amendments Act This practice is not commonly or historically Mr. Chairperson: Bill 8, The Enforcement of used by members of the public, or indeed, even Judgments Conventions and Consequential individual members of the legal profession. Amendments Act. Does the Minister of Justice There are 2100 wills being kept fo r safekeeping have an opening statement? in Winnipeg, deposited almost exclusively by the Law Society of Manitoba. The Law Society Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice deposits a will with the court when they come and Attorney General): The Bill, I guess, into the possession of wills as a result of taking deserves the comments at second reading and, if custody of a lawyer's practice. We consulted there were any questions, we certainly would be with the Law Society and they will assume prepared to entertain those. responsibility now fo r the safekeeping and returning of these wills. They are contemplating Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does a change in the current practice of lawyers the critic from the Official Opposition have an retaining wills to start with. opening statement? Other secure and more appropriate options Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. are available to individuals today fo r safe­ Chair, I am going to skip the opening statement keeping of personal papers including wills. Wills and ask the question I indicated at second currently deposited with the courts will remain reading. I take it that this will allow for the for safekeeping with the courts. There is not enforcement of maintenance and support orders sufficient secure storage space available in the fr om other jurisdictions. court office to accommodate the deposit of any more wills. The courts will incur additional Mr. Mackintosh: This extends to civil judg­ administrative costs to increase and improve the ments beyond maintenance enforcement, but the secure storage fa cility fo r wills, as well as effectiveness of the legislation does depend on resources to maintain and manage the registry. the fe deral ratificationof the treaty. An appropriate fe e to offset the administrative cost would result in higher costs to the client Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Member. when there are cheaper options available. So During the consideration of a bill, the schedule, those are the balances that we had to consider in the preamble and the title are postponed until all moving ahead. of the clauses have been considered in their proper order. Is there agreement to consider in Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does blocks that conform to pages? Agreed. the critic fr om the Official Opposition have an opening statement? Clause 1-pass; clauses 2 through 6-pass; clauses 7(1), 7(2), 8, 9(1), and 9(2}-pass; Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): I just schedule-pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. Bill be want to indicate that this is in the life of the reported. province a small bill, I admit. I look to his staff 124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

to advise him here. When you talk about some victims rights bill, I think here is, on the other 2000 wills, and when you consider most wills side of this coin, a small service being offered to would be the size of a piece of a paper, about the the citizens of Manitoba to give them peace of size of the bill itself or one of these larger bills mind that their last will and testament is folded over, we are talking about maybe the deposited with a public body that they can take space of a desk in our court system. comfort in, is not in the hands of the legal profession or their relatives or someone else. I must tell the Attorney General, I have been They know that their last intentions can be around this place for twelve years, I have carried out as they directed. articled, I went to law school. I did not know this was available, and quite frankly, if I think Given the size of what we are talking about members of the public knew that this service here, I would have thought that this Attorney was available, even for a small fee, it might be General, who, you know, one could describe as a something that they availed themselves of. There bit of an activist, would have taken it upon is a fundamental sense of security to himself to say to his administrative staff, when I Manitobans, particularly those who may not trust am sure they brought this forward, now, come their relatives, who may not trust lawyers, et on. I know if I were Attorney General and the cetera, and sometimes the profession and Deputy Attorney General, who is here today, relatives give good cause not to be trusted, but it would have brought this to my attention, I would is a sense that their Department of Justice can have said, Bruce, come on here. Let us find maintain that will on safekeeping, and it is some space and Jet people know about this available to check should they reach their service. demise. This is a good service for government to offer. I am not going to take this bill here and let Mr. Mackintosh, if he were my critic, make this When I hear the comment by the Attorney statement at committee that I am making here General, his opening remarks that there is not today, and I hear, as I make it, probably I put enough room and there are some 2000 of these, I words in his mouth, but the Member for look at Bill 32, for example, folded in half, and I Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I could hear him think 2000 pieces of paper like this are not going making this speech to this committee about a to occupy a great deal of room. I am thinking small service that government offers to its­ what is the big issue here. If anything, I would [interjection] Well, the Member for Thompson have hoped that the Department of Justice would may be enjoying cabinet office so much. have found it in itself to make this a service that they would have wanted to advertise and let I just want to say that we will be opposing people know about. We all have from time to this piece of legislation. We will not be time constituents who do not trust the legal supporting it. I just say with regret that I would profession, do not want to rent a safety deposit have thought some of the New Democratic party box on an ongoing basis, do not trust relatives. backbenchers would have, after my remarks in In giving them the security that their government second reading I saw a Jot of nods that said, yes, is going to have a secure place where they can why are we doing this, that they perhaps would store their last will and testament is, I think, a have raised it with the Attorney General. I only very nice service to be offered to the people of say this, by last comments, because there were our province. colleagues here. The Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is one who has been around a long *(II:30) time. Every now and again departments administratively will bring forward bills to When I look at so many of the initiatives of ministers because it suits their purposes. It is the the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh) and the role, as the Member for Elmwood reminded me Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) to be when the Member for Portage Ia Prairie was Mr. protecting the rights of people who are in Connery who brought back in a whole bunch of personal care homes, protecting our citizens consumer legislation that the Department wanted from abusive care in health care facilities, our that was fraught with difficulty, and he reminded July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 125

� � us t a wh�n he was in government, the Pawley p�o�ide a mechanism fo r insuring the legality of admmtstratlon, they had rej ected it and rejected dtgttal documents, has the Minister considered it and rejected it. We came to power as now or in the future the potential of storing wills Conservatives. Mr. Connery grabbed it, and he electronically? brought it forward into the House and, boy, he got beat up on many of those bills because they Mr. Mackintosh: I can see the heading now in were not thought out. the election materials for the Conservatives' next election and what they are going to say on This just has a hint of that as well. So I Justice. First of all, in terms of rank and file, we would like to indicate today that we will be ar not aware of the rank and file wanting or opposing this legislation. We will not be : . usmg thts. The staff has advised that in the last supporting it. We will go on record as standing few years they are not aware of a single rank­ �or the rank-and-file Manitoban who would just and-file member of the public that has ever hke the comfort of knowing that they had the thought this was a good option to pursue. We, in right until the passage of this bill because this fact, since the legislation has been introduced government chose to fo llow its administrative we have had no objection from anyone, excep� advisers rather than stand up fo r the right of fo r the critic. those fe w thousand Manitobans who would like the care and comfort, the peace of mind to be Second of all, the issue of security is one of able to deposit their will with the courts. concern to the Department. How do we ensure that wills that are deposited are secure from fire I just say this to some of the New Democrat or from theft or from other threats, and what is backbenchers. We on this side will not view this the liability of the Province? What we have to bill as a confidence measure. We will not view it ask is what is the appropriate role for the court's as a confidence measure, and I challenge them, division in dealing with private matters? Wills the Member fo r Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), the are a private matter. They are not a public M_ember for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau), to join matter. Those are matters fo r a testator and wtth us, the Member for Riel (Ms. Asper), in beneficiaries. So, in terms of moving towards stan�ing up for the rank-and-file ordinary any others kinds of ways of creating documents Mamtoban and defeat this bill and send a signal or storing documents, those are private matters. to their cabinet ministers and the bureaucrats of this province that the legislators rule here, not I might just add that there are only two other the administrators. And we will not view this as provinces in Canada that still have this whole a confidence matter. Maybe the Leader of the provision: �askatchewan and Ontario. Recently, Li�eral Party may, and he may want to speak to Nova Scotia and the Law Reform Commission thts. But we on this side will not view it as a in March '99 did a review of how they deal with confidence matter, so they canfe el perfectly free wills in that province. They state as· fo llows: to defeat this bill and not defeat their Commentators suggested that keeping wills was government, that they can take the whips off and the testa or's responsibility. The confidentiality support us. Just send a small signal to the . � of a wtll s contents could not be guaranteed in a Attorney General, whom I generally like, that he depository. They recommended against estab­ has to pay more attention to these small details lishing a depository for wills. and not letting the Department of Justice rule all. So I ut out the challenge and just indicate today � We remain of the view that this is a private we wtll not be supporting this act, and we look responsibility. We have to look, given the to other members to join with us in standing up demands on the justice system and on courts as for Manitobans. to �hat ro�e public dollars should play, and pubhc offictals should play, this is a matter fo r Mr. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I have a private individuals, in our view.[interjection] question for the Minister of Justice the consideration of storage space. In view �f the f�ct that in this legislature we are dealing with a Mr. Chairperson: Order. Mr. Gerrard has the btll on electronic commerce which would floor. 126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

Mr. Gerrard: I would presume that the Minister to The Manitoba Evidence Act. What we will of Justice and his department has the knowledge see develop over the years will be the new fo rm and the wherewithal to provide security from fire of court documentation moving from paper to and other problems fo r many of the documents other fo rms. That will be triggered in large part that are dealt with in the Department on a daily not just by the legislative reform but by the_ �se basis. I would ask the Minister whether this then by the profession and others of e-maihng really was a major consideration and a major and e-filing of court documents. stumbling block fo r the Department as he Mr. Gerrard: Let me just fo llow that up once suggests. more. The Department is considering, you mentioned, e-filing of documents and legal Mr. Mackintosh: There was a storage, of requirements, et cetera, fo r that. It would seem to course, of court documents, a will, maybe the me surely that in terms of, if space was a major transfer of assets of millions of dollars, and if a consideration, that electronic capacity within the document is not secure, there are questions of Department is certainly not all that limited. liability. I think the underpinning here is again Back-up processes and so on would be such that the question of why this practice developed, and you could very easily secure against fire n why it should continue when we are looking to � individual site. Notwithstanding that maybe this prioritize · the role of courts and the justice is an area where government might not go, but I system and the lives of Manitobans. We have think that many of the arguments that you have critical issues: the court's administration and presented, if one were dealing with an electronic demands about public safety. We have to decide document system, really are not all that valid. It what business we are in and what business we would have perhaps been appropriate at this time should not be in. to give it a little bit more thought.

Mr. Gerrard: I also would like to pursue the Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I do not know if the issue of digital documents one step further. One Member is talking about wills, but the fo rm of of the things which, it seems to me, indeed is wills is determined by the testator, and so be it. I absent from The Electronic Commerce Act is might add that the Department is proactively recognition that there may be a role for pursuing the move to electronic orders, if you government to be involved in digital storage of _ will what are called auto orders, when It comes documents, both of a public and potentially of a to c�rtain proceedings in the fam ily division and private nature, in a fashion that would be both the court where there are essentially boiler-plate confidential and legally acceptable. Clearly, we orders available, and then there is a picking and will work for some time in a digital world where choosing of the relevant orders as a result of the there are uncertainties about precisely what is proceeding. This is all being done automatically acceptable and proper storage of documents. rather than the order being worked out over a period of some several months fo llowing a I would ask the Minister, in the context of hearing. this bill, if it might have been an example of an area where his department could have looked at So what we see in the Department is a very how it might be possible to store digital proactive approach looking tow d th new kind documents fo r the public in a way that would be � � of information technology that IS with us now legally acceptable, because this is something that and I think can be put to much greater use. will probably have to be considered, not only by his department, but by many people over �he Mr. Chairperson: During the consideration of a coming years in Manitoba, as we are deahng bill, the preamble and the title are p stpom d increasingly with electronic documents. � : until all other clauses have been considered m their proper order. * (11:40) Clause 1-pass; clause 2-pass; clause 3-pass; Mr. Mackintosh: Well, that issue, of course, clause 4-pass; preamble-pass; title-pass. will be discussed more fu lly in the consideration of the e-commerce bill, which includes changes Shall the Bill be reported? July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127

Some Honourable Members: No. summons_:have they been sent by ordinary mail in the past or by registered mail? Mr. Chairperson: No? Mr. Mackintosh: Registered mail. Voice Vote Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, this is then now Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of repor­ lessening the requirement to simply ordinary ting the Bill, please indicate by saying yea. mail and a deemed receipt by the individual.

Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Mackintosh: That is correct.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please Mr. Praznik: Is this just an administrative indicate by saying nay. matter by the Department to make life easier for them and less convenient for the citizens of our Mr. Chairperson: In my view, the Yeas have it. province?

Mr. Praznik: On division, sir. Mr. Mackintosh: There are some financial benefits to the move but the checks, as to Mr. Chairperson: On division. Thank you. whether there has been receipt, although there is not an acknowledgment of receipt card, there are The next bill is Bill 23, the Jury Amendment the other mechanisms that are in the bill. Act. Does the Minister have an opening state­ ment? Mr. Praznik: I would like to understand the motivation for this particular piece of legislation. Bill 23-The Jury Amendment Act Here, now, citizens under the current regime as I understand it, if they are called for jury duty, Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice received a registered letter. You as the Attorney and Attorney General): The Jury Act provides General, the administrative justice, know they for service of the jury summons at least 12 days have received it because there has been a receipt before the required date of attendance. In card. Now you are taking that right of a citizen Winnipeg, jury summons are sent out at least 20 to being called fo r jury duty, which has some days prior to the required attendance date. For penalty, I take it, if you do not respond. The jury trials held in the regional court offices, the Attorney General may want to tell us, in fact I summons are sent out almost two months in asked him what the penalties are if people do not advance. This additional lead-time should respond. But you are now saying, well, we are provide sufficient notice to compensate jurors deeming you to be in receipt of this thing; the living in remote locations or without daily mail penalties apply, and it is up to you to make the service. I am responding to the critic's com­ case. It is not up to us to prove that we actually ments. The Act still provides for personal got a hold of you. delivery of the summons to the juror at their usual residence, place of employment, or leaving Could the Attorney General just tell us what the summons with a person over the age of 18 at the penalties are fo r not responding to the their residence or place of employment, in addi­ summons for jury duty? tion to ordinary mail delivery as an alternative. Mr. Mackintosh: A penalty would only flow where a potential juror indicated the confirmed Mr. Chairperson: We thank the Minister. Does attendance and then did not show. the critic from the Official Opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Praznik: I am asking the Attorney General: Is there a penalty today if you are summoned fo r Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): A jury duty and you do not show up at all, you do couple of concerns. First, a question fo r the not commit to come but you have received a Minister of Justice. Does this now mean that a summons today, you have acknowledged receipt 128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000 of the summons by registered mail but you do of you that have gone through that process, that not show up? Is there a penalty for that? What is not very convenient to the recipient either. does the law prescribe as the penalty? I am not You have to go down, get your mail, you have to asking whether it is enforced. I want to know sign for it. What has happened, though, is that in what the law prescribes as the penalty. January of 2000, Canada Post implemented a revised registered mail service which does not Mr. Mackintosh: There is a sanction for default provide proof of service in the fo rm of in most circumstances, summary conviction to a acknowledgement of receipt card and in fact is fine not more than $500, imprisonment of not more expensive to use. What we are doing here more than 30 days, or both. The practice has now is, by ordinary mail, sending the summons. been fo r some 30 years, I understand, or so, that All one has to do, then, is pick up the phone and that provision is invoked. In other words, there call in as to whether attendance can be would be information only laid where someone confirmed, or request an exemption. So, in terms had confirmed attendance and then come at all. of convenience, I think this appears to be more convenient to Manitobans and potential jurors Mr. Praznik: My understanding of this scheme, than the fo rmer system. and I ask the Attorney General to please correct me if I am wrong, but it is that whereas today Mr. Praznik: It may appear to be more under the law, if you were summoned for jury convenient. I understand that there is an issue duty you received a registered letter in the mail. with the registered mail service. What we are So it has to be acknowledged. You know you now doing is we are saying once you as a have received the summons. If you choose not to department throw the summons in the mail, if we appear, then it is a willing act on your part. If pass this provision, it is deemed within five days you have an excuse or a reason you can make it, to be received. call and make it, et cetera.

- I represent a constituency with a large * (1 1 :50) number of people who are retired, who live in seasonal recreational areas, that go away for the We are now changing that for convenience winter, fo r three or four months, that check in fo r of the Department of Justice to a scheme where their mail maybe once a month, once very two they throw the summons in the mail. By law, if weeks. I look to the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. this bill passes, we now deem you to have Jennissen) for support here. He represents a received it, and the onus is now on you to constituency as well where there are many demonstrate your absence, accident, illness, et people who are out in the bush working in cetera, or other cause. It is up to you. You are logging operations who are not regularly getting now guilty of an offence because we have their mail. deemed you to have received it, even if you have not. You will now be guilty of an offence simply by the act of deeming, unless you can make a This bill strikes me as it was designed for an reasonable excuse under this act. urban situation, whether it be a small town, or a city like Winnipeg where people are home every This sounds to me that we have now day. In fact, I would argue that those people who reversed the requirement from the Crown to are fortunate enough to have free home delivery demonstrate that they have served you to one of their mail in certain parts of Winnipeg are where it is up to the unsuspecting citizen to be well convenienced here. But those like my able to demonstrate that they in fact did not constituents who have to go to their post office, receive the summons. We have switched the in many cases, drive many, many miles to get onus fo r the convenience, again, of the their mail, who do not do it sometimes even on a Department of Justice. Would that be a fair weekly basis, we are now putting them in a assessment? position where they are deemed to have been summoned and receive their summons into court - Mr. Mackintosh: First of all, under the old when in fact they have never seen or got the acknowledgment of receipt card process, for any letter and may not get it for weeks at a time. July 19, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129

So I think this bill has been poorly designed If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw by his department to convenience only this bill, then I would suggest that he have staff Winnipeggers who get everyday delivery to their move an amendment, otherwise we will do it, homes. People in Beausejour and Lac du Bonnet and I look to staff, the reasons for absences, that all have to come in for their mail to get it at the they are acting in good faith, he or she, and I post offices. So when he talks about being more quote, did not receive the summons or did not convenient, they are in to pick their mail up at receive it until a later date because of absence, the post office. They are going to sign for their accident, illness or other cause beyond the registered mail on a regular, if they receive it. In person's control. fact, there is no change at all fo r them. So I think this is representative of a department that is What I have not seen here is I do not pick up thinking in terms of Winnipeg and Brandon my mail more than once a month. I am still perhaps where there is home delivery, and it is home, I am not absent from my home, I am not an Attorney General who is not aware of the down south, I am not out on a trapline, but I realities of receipt of mail outside of the city of simply only pick up my mail once a month or Winnipeg. This is not a convenience. once every two weeks because it is a half-hour or hour's drive. In fact, if anything, it is an imposition, you I think to my constituents in Bird River, know, when we talk about wanting a justice Nopiming Park who go into Lac du Bonnet, system, we are making people criminals here, which for many of them is an hour-plus drive, offenders here through no fault or act of their who may only go into town once a week, once own, and fo r those of us who represent rural every two weeks, sometimes in the winter once a constituencies, northern constituencies, part of month, to pick up their mail. I see no provision my riding is a northern riding, where people are here fo r-because it is in their control. They out in bush camps, prospecting, earning their could go in every day. They are not absent. They living, away for stretches of time, for the people would have no excuse. So I would ask the who are retired and go to British Columbia or Attorney General, if he is not prepared to south for the winter who only get their mail withdraw this bill, to think it through for rural sporadically during that period, this is of no and other areas that do not have home delivery, convenience at all. In fact it makes them crimi­ if he is prepared at least to include an nals, puts onuses on them when we should not amendment that would allow evidence that I did be doing that. not pick up my mail. I may have very good cause for not picking up my mail. I may not just So I would suggest that we cannot support live in St. Johns constituency and have door-to­ this bill. We think it is not properly thought out. door delivery. I might live in Nopiming Park, or I would urge the Attorney General to perhaps I might live 40 or 50 miles out from Cranberry withdraw it and rethink this through and come Portage, and I do not come into town regularly. up with a better piece of legislation which would be more accommodating to those people who do If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw not get their mail delivered to their door on a this bill to rethink it, I would ask that at least he, daily basis. This is offensive, I think, to most perhaps with the agreement of this committee, people in rural Manitoba who have to pick up put it off until next week to have an appropriate their mail. In fact, virtually 98 percent of my amendment to expand the reasons by which a constituents pick up their mail somewhere. Only person would not be guilty of an offence to 2 percent get rural route delivery, and I look to include "just does not regularly pick up their members from the North who represent small mail." communities, people who are out on the Bay Line who come in maybe once a month to get Mr. Chairperson: Before I recognize the mail in Thompson and other places. This is Minister of Justice, we are very close to the really offensive to them and does not adjournment time. Is it the will of the committee accommodate them in any way. to continue until we finish this bill or to adjourn? 130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 2000

Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps if I can respond to Mr. Mackintosh: Well, we will certainly those remarks, I would prefer to move ahead consider the comments, but it will also be with the Bill. We can put our remarks on the considered in this context. The Member may record, and we will consider the suggestions of have missed my opening remarks, but fo r jury the critic between now and report stage certainly. trials held in the regional court offices around the province, the summonses are sent out almost Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee two months before the required appearance to adj ourn or to complete this bill? versus roughly the twenty days in Winnipeg, so Mr. Praznik: If the committee would allow us a there already is a recognition of the difference. fe w moments. If the Attorney General is In terms of the arguments he was advancing in committing to look at this issue for consideration terms of picking up mail once a month, that of either withdrawing this bill or considering an same argument will hold true fo r registered mail. amendment at report stage, then we are prepared Finally, outside of Winnipeg the sheriffs are to see it pass through, with our opposition used and can be used where someone is not in recorded, here today, but I would strongly urge receipt of regular mail and that has been, I him to talk to his colleagues from outside the understand, the practice and will continue to be city of Winnipeg, at minimum, an amendment, the practice of personal delivery. but I would suggest rethinking this because it is really offensive to thousands and thousands of Mr. Chairperson: We need to fo cus here a little Manitobans who do not have home delivery of bit and see if there is a will to sit past twelve their mail. I would suggest if the Attorney o'clock or not. Is it agreed? We do not have General would like to get this done, we are agreement. Committee rise. prepared to sit another five or ten minutes. Some of my colleagues also have comments, and the Leader of the Liberal Party may as well. COMMI1TEE ROSE AT: 11:58 p.m.

-