Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have nine Grades 2 to 6 students from Brandon Community School under the direction of Mrs. Cecilia Fjeldsted and Mrs. Bev Leckie. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mr. McCrae).

Also, fifteen Grades 7, 8 and 9 students from Inglis School under the direction of Mr. Dwight Brown. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).

We also have forty-two Kindergarten to Grade 8 students from Winkler Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Lois Guenther. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

Also, twenty-three Grade 5 students from Lord Roberts Community School under the direction of Mrs. Terry Welsh. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* (1340)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Child Development Clinic

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, at the Child Development Clinic, in this year, the waiting list for children with autism and FAS was some six- to eight-months wait, and that was with a staffing complement that is being depleted daily. Dr. Jocelyn is leaving today.

I would like to ask the minister or the Premier (Mr. Filmon): what impact will this have on an unbearably long waiting list already, and what impact will this have on the assessment and treatment of kids who are facing these challenges?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, as we have discussed in this House on a previous occasion, the individual that the Leader of the Opposition refers to, I am told, is leaving to continue her education, to further pursue her education. The total complement of the clinic will not only be maintained, but I believe it is being increased by anywhere from one-half to one more position.

Again, with the whole view to address the very issue that he has raised, we have dedicated additional resources to deal with those issues, and we also are supporting the maintenance and enhancement of the staffing at the clinic.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, on May 12, the WHA, one of its seven vice-presidents mentioned that there would be no funds to fill this position. The minister then stated in the hallway and to the public that the WHA has the funds. On May 13, he gave the same answer as he has just given that they would be actually having additional positions. Given the fact that there were 2.5 doctors in January and half a psychologist, and we are now at half a doctor, with the loss of Dr. Jocelyn, and one full-time psychologist, which reinstates something that was there a couple of years ago, how can the minister say to the public that the waiting list will not increase and the assessment programs and treatment programs will not be cancelled for kids?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, as we have discussed before–in fact, the Leader of the Opposition, I think, when he last raised this question in this House, talked about there being two and a half doctor positions at the clinic. I indicated to him that those positions will be maintained. In fact, the clinic will now have three and a half positions, an expansion of one full position. The funding is available for those positions. That certainly is the commitment of our government. The WHA is well aware of that, and that is the action that is being taken to fill three and a half positions to address the very issue that he raises here today.

Mr. Doer: The action that is being taken is families who are phoning the clinic for follow-up assessment and treatment interviews are being told they can no longer have treatment for their children.

Mrs. Shemanski is a mother of a five-year-old child that has autism, and she has just been told today that there will be no follow-up treatments because there are no doctors available for her child. I would like to ask the minister to get a handle on what we are hearing from the parents who have kids versus the government minister in this House versus what the WHA said a couple of weeks ago. We want action for those parents and for those kids, and we are not getting it from this minister.

* (1345)

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, at least we can agree on the same thing. We want action for those kids as well. I am sure that is one of the many reasons that the Leader of the Opposition and his party supported our 1999 budget, because it does include funds to provide not only the maintenance of the two and a half positions, it provides the funding for three and a half positions. The WHA is well aware of that. It is a high priority for this government. It is a high priority for the WHA. They have the funding to address the issue, and they will be addressing the issue.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I have been reading the broadcasting code for advertising to children, and it is amazing the way that the regulations are attempting to ensure that children are not being exploited. It is equally appalling to see the availability now, and the fact that Manitoba children are being offered up as a captive audience to advertisers in our province.

I want to ask the Premier if he is not concerned that children watch, on average, 6.5 hours of television per day, more time than they spend in school, that they see more than 10,000 commercials a year. Meanwhile, one-quarter of children are underactive and overweight, and 60 percent cannot pass fitness tests.

I want to ask the minister: why is his government standing aside while the curriculum for physical education is not being met, and we are now going to have advertising and TV in Manitoba classrooms?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite knows my personal views about lifelong health, commitment to physical activity, commitment to ensuring that all of us do everything possible to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I have done commercials for the Manitoba High School Athletic Association, for Sport Manitoba and worked with them extensively, as have a number of my colleagues, to ensure that they have the resources and the support to make sure that our young people have a lifelong commitment to physical activity that begins in the schools.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson, with a supplementary question.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I would like to then ask the Premier if there is a problem in his government, if his commitment is not being translated into policy in this government and he can tell us why they are not taking a position while school divisions in the province are trading phys ed for TV, while they are reducing the time for physical activity and opening the doors for advertising and commercials for YNN.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to accept at face value things that the member opposite brings to us because they often prove to be incorrect. So I will certainly take that matter as notice on behalf of the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae). If school divisions, if school boards are subverting the intent of the curriculum and the intent of the Department of Education in setting standards to ensure that phys ed remains very much a vibrant and necessary part of children's education, then we will obviously take action on that.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Premier if he does not think it is hypocritical this week to be putting in the newspaper a document which says children need 30 minutes of physical activity every day to improve fitness and health levels and at the same time have his government reducing the time for physical education in our schools.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the preamble to the member's original question contains the germ of the answer. That is that it cannot be just the responsibility of those of us in government to be able to ensure that children learn and are encouraged to have a lifetime devoted to physical health and wellness and activity. It has to be a family thing. She said that the average child spends six and a half hours watching TV outside of school. Now that is obviously at the time when they are in the presence of parents and family. So putting out advertising and encouraging, as I have done, as many of us have done, on an individual basis, encouraging through any number of means that young people are urged by their own parents, by their own families to ensure that they remain physically active so that they can also be mentally alert, that they can contribute to having a healthier future is very, very important. That is why putting in ads of that nature, that is why getting involved as I have done in programs with the Manitoba High School Athletic Association, with Sport Manitoba is to encourage everybody in society to buy into it. It does not come from Big Brother sitting in the Legislature like the members opposite want. All we get from the New Democrats is top down, trying to force people to do things which we must ensure everybody knows is in their best interests.

* (1350)

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want you to make sure you call the members opposite to order when they are answering questions, provoking debate to not deal with the matter raised, which is the cuts that this government has systematically made to physical education and the fact that they are now offering up Manitoba's children to be shown advertising in school. More TV, less phys ed, your government.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, I know that the member opposite is embarrassed when she is shown to be the kind of nondemocrat that she is by standing up and saying it is up to the Legislature to dictate to people how their children will behave and what their children will do. We reject that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson did not have a point of order.

Flood Conditions

Drainage Efforts

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, we in this House can understand the frustration that farmers in the southwest corner of the province feel when they see their crops–hopefully their crops at some point but right now their empty fields covered with water. We still have coming into our offices complaints of counterproductive drainage happening from one farmer to the next and one R.M. to the next. Given the fact that the Water Commission report recommended conditions under which the province would assume responsibility for local emergency management in times like this year's flood, can the Minister of Natural Resources explain what specifically this government is doing to co-ordinate immediate drainage in the southwest part of our province?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, the member for Dauphin did a fly past and he saw a lot of water, I am sure, but one of the problems that occurs in the area that we are referring to is that we need to have an orderly and appropriate way of dealing with the water. In fact, in many cases there is no appropriate direction to drain the water without increasing the problems of the neighbours that would be receiving the water.

As I said earlier this week and the week before, our staff is willing and able and is working with municipalities and land owners to find if there is appropriate emergency drainage that can be undertaken, but it is a very unfortunate situation where we have trapped water in a number of areas. We will have to work with the land owners and in particular with the municipalities to find an appropriate way to deal with it because taking the problem from one person's property and putting it on another one is not an appropriate solution.

Mr. Struthers: What specifically, though, what action, has this government taken to help co-ordinate drainage efforts in the flooded Pembina River Valley?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would rephrase his question. I was temporarily distracted.

* (1355)

Mr. Struthers: I would be glad to, Madam Speaker. The situation in the Pembina River Valley is one in which many farmers are struggling to try to drain some of the swollen Pembina River off of their land, and I am wondering if the minister can indicate what action this government is taking to help co-ordinate drainage efforts in that part of the province as well.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, the appropriate efforts are being made by people in the field to work with the municipalities and with the individuals. [interjection] In fact, one of my colleagues reminds me there are conservation districts in that area which are very much a key part of the management of the resource.

Further to that, there have been no requests that have come to me from any of the municipalities for the province again to seize the authority and to take Big Brother action to deal with this. In fact, we are currently appealing a ruling in the courts that says that the municipalities in fact have the jurisdiction for drainage. We are awaiting the results of that appeal, but we are in close contact regularly with the municipalities and continue to work with them on this front. This is not a time for confrontation or imposition of authority. It is time to bring reason and common sense to the most practical solution we can.

Compensation–Farmers

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Can the minister explain what specific assistance this government is willing to provide agribusiness and other farm-based businesses who have been negatively impacted by this devastating flood?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, there are a number of departments within this government that have made themselves available, and we will continue to work with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, with the individual farmers. The Department of Agriculture, Departments of Rural Development, Natural Resources have all made every effort to make sure that we provide any assistance that is reasonable to extend to the areas, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is closely working with the various farm organizations to monitor the situation and make sure that they are availed of any support that we can reasonably provide and particularly to make sure that the farmers of these areas know that they will receive the same measure of support that we gave in the Red River Valley two years ago.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, it is well known that the Progressive Conservative Party uses Western Opinion Research as their polling firm. The government of Manitoba currently uses Western Opinion Research for its Crown corporations, Department of Health, Department of Finance, Department of Justice. This firm has received over a million dollars' worth of business from the party and from the government.

Will the Premier confirm that he recently signed an Order-in-Council giving this firm a $100,000 totally forgivable loan?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the member opposite probably knows that a very similar package of support was given to Angus Reid company that also does polling and has done polling for our government and for Crown corporations in our government. They added 200 jobs. They were eligible for support under the terms and conditions of the programs that we offer, and they added the jobs that I know Manitobans are very happy about.

If the member opposite wants to continue to denigrate companies that are expanding and creating jobs in this province, then we will have in our province what we had when he and his colleagues were in government, which is a youth unemployment rate 3 percent above Canada's average and a lack of job creation that resulted in the disastrous circumstances that we inherited.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, does the Premier not see that there is a major conflict of interest having all of his cabinet being supported by this firm politically and then using the firm in government to do the same kind of polling work in government and then giving them a $100,000 call centre that they used to phone members of the public over the last few months asking them if they are going to support the government? Does he not get it?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, this is a firm that does work for many clients. This is a firm that, like Angus Reid, is out there doing polling for a whole variety of clients. Under those circumstances, if they are expanding and creating job opportunities, they are entitled to the same programs that are available to their competitors. The same terms and conditions that would apply to any other company applied to them, and under those circumstances they qualified because they were doing something the member opposite does not know very much about, and that is creating real jobs in this province.

* (1400)

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, if the Premier is so sure that there is no conflict of interest and there is nothing wrong with this grant, could he explain to the House why, when his government makes press releases for a few thousand dollars and in some cases a few hundred dollars, there was no press release about this, no publicity, because they knew that there was a smell about this grant, right?

Mr. Filmon: You know, I think it is really unfortunate that the member opposite is always searching in the gutter for any black news that he can possibly dredge up, and he will go to any length to damage any businesses or any parts of the Manitoba economy. He is negative, negative, negative, black, black, black. He is the duke of despair, and everybody in Manitoba knows it. That is the kind of embarrassment that he brings every day to his party in this House.

Driver Licensing

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): My question is for the Premier. After a nine-month break, one would expect to see somewhat of a legislative agenda. What we see is a very weak attempt at providing a legislative agenda. We understand; now we have an idea why. The government seems to say that if you have a good idea, put it on hold. If you want confirmation of that, we look to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) who is quoted in the local paper as saying on graduated licences that it is because of a looming election in part that we are not going to be introducing legislation of this nature.

Can the Premier indicate why we are suppressing good ideas nowadays?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I find the irony coming from the Liberal Party which has offered so few policy options to the people of Manitoba over the past number of years in this Assembly. Government operations are affected by a number of things, not just legislation. They are affected by the budget. The budget that we brought in has some very significant improvements for Manitobans in reducing taxes, so much so, the New Democrats voted for them. Government policy and operations also have a significant impact on the lives of Manitobans. A legislative component is one, and we have many items before this particular session. There are some still coming on which policy work is taking place.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question is for the Minister of Highways: then will the Minister of Highways clearly indicate to the House that the member for Portage la Prairie was in fact wrong, that the government is indeed looking at bringing in graduated licences?

Mr. Praznik: The issue of graduated licences is just one example. It is a proposal that has come forward that some have advocated. It is one that certainly the previous minister and the department had done some work on looking at the implications. But there are certainly two sides to that issue, and it is not one necessarily that this government is prepared to accept holus-bolus. So it is not one that we brought forward at this time.

Mr. Lamoureux: I think that Manitobans–and I ask the Minister of Highways to acknowledge–do recognize that the government does have a role, even if it is leading up to an election, a responsibility to bring forward ideas and bring in legislation where it is duly debated.

My question specific to the Minister of Highways: is the government prepared to bring in the graduated licence legislation so that we can have the debate on the issue?

Mr. Praznik: The member is asking me as minister to bring forward a bill so the matter can be debated on an item that this government may not be prepared to accept. The member for Inkster has the perfect right to bring forward a private member's bill if he so chooses if he wants the matter debated in this House. He can bring forward a resolution. If there is anyone coming here today talking about not having the imagination or the strength or the willingness or just, quite frankly, he is being pure lazy in bringing an item to the House, it is the member for Inkster. If he wants it, bring it in a private member's resolution.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister of Highways, who is also the government House leader, is definitely imputing motives on my behalf, and when you do not sit for nine months, if anyone should be imputing motives of being lazy, it should be the Liberals accusing the government of being lazy.

The reason why I rise on the point of order is because a very clear point in the paper where David Faurschou, although personally supportive of the graduated licence system, is definitely implying that the government is looking at bringing it in because of–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I was not imputing a motive. I was making an observation. If the member for Inkster would like the matter debated in this House, then he is perfectly free to bring it forward as a private member's resolution for debate of this issue. We have 31 members in this caucus. We have debates internally in terms of policy issue. That particular one has not received the approval of this government to come to legislative stage. I know it is much easier to have policy debates in a caucus of two.

*(1410)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster did not have a point of order.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, Justice Alfred Monnin's report on the vote-rigging scandal pointed out that the ethics of the PC Party and its members' behaviour were and continue to be an impairment to democracy, to the workings of democracy in the province of Manitoba. Previously, both the minister and the deputy minister have answered questions on this topic. In a recent letter to the PC Party, Mrs. Jan Nestibo writes: the expulsion of Gary Nestibo–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a question?

Ms. McGifford: Well, yes, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question posed by Mrs. Nestibo in a letter to the Tory caucus.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): On a point of order, I know the New Democrats do not have any policy issues to talk about, that they support our government and our budget, but, Madam Speaker, I think they are fully aware that, in the rules, to use Question Periods to ask the Ministers of the Crown issues with respect to their party responsibilities is clearly out of order.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, first of all, the member had not posed the question yet, so it is inappropriate for the government House leader to rise before the question was put. Secondly–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, to complete his statement regarding the point of order.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Secondly, the member for Osborne has an important question to ask regarding a public document, the Monnin inquiry report and issues resulting out of that report. I think it is entirely in order, and I hope that you will rule that way. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the government House leader, I stood and requested that the honourable member for Osborne pose her question because (a) she had had a very long preliminary, well beyond our guidelines, and I had asked the honourable member to please pose her question. I am therefore not aware that her question was out of order at this point because, in my opinion, she had not posed the question.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with no preamble, to please pose her question now.

Ms. McGifford: I was only going to thank you for your ruling, Madam Speaker.

I would like to ask the question asked of the party by Mrs. Jan Nestibo, and that is: where are the PC memberships of the men involved in the Monnin inquiry?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the member has clearly asked a question with respect to party responsibilities which is out of order, so I would ask that you rule her as such.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, on the same point of order.

Ms. McGifford: On the same point of order, if you could ask the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh) to be quiet.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. That is a new point of order. The honourable member for Osborne was–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. If the honourable member for Osborne is standing on a new point of order that she made reference to, then I would ask that she allow the Speaker to deal with the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, and that was that her question was indeed out of order.

The honourable member for Osborne, on the same point of order.

Ms. McGifford: On the same point of order, I wanted to point out that both the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Stefanson) have shown their willingness to discuss this topic before. It seems to me perhaps that might be considered setting a precedent, but also, this Premier has said repeatedly that the buck stops here. I am giving him the opportunity to stop the buck by answering the question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader (Mr. Praznik), according to Beauchesne's Citation 409.(6), the question is indeed out of order: "A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government." And 410.(10), "The subject matter of questions must be within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibilities of Ministers."

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, with a new question?

Ms. McGifford: Yes, on a new question. As the Premier knows, in the Monnin inquiry certain gentlemen were cited. I refer to Messrs. Barrett, McFarlane, Sokolyk, Thorsteinson. The report indicated that these gentlemen had put in jeopardy the workings of democracy in the province of Manitoba, and I would like to ask the Premier if these gentlemen, and I use that term advisedly, still enjoy the privileges of membership in his party?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Once again the honourable member's question is indeed out of order.

Victims Rights

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yesterday I took notice of the particulars of the question posed by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). The member stated that in a case involving the death of Erica McEvoy, the Department of Justice downplayed the seriousness of the crime by reducing the charge from the charge of criminal negligence causing death to the lowest charge of dangerous driving.

Madam Speaker, I have looked into the matter and found that the member for St. Johns has once again misled the House in providing this information. In fact, it was not a guilty plea to the lowest charge of dangerous driving, which the member, being a lawyer, knows only carries a maximum penalty of six months. In fact, the accused pled guilty to the indictable offence of dangerous driving causing death, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Why the member, especially since he is a lawyer and would know better, would bring this erroneous information to the House, I cannot say. However, by doing so, he degrades and insults the efforts of the Crown attorney who prosecuted this case and leaves the false impression that the Crown attorney did not care about the victim or the family. It is very regrettable that the member for St. Johns would conduct himself in this manner.

Plea Bargaining

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a question.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a follow-up question to the information from the minister, the minister who should know of course from his investigations that indeed there was a plea bargain in this matter, a plea bargain that we are concerned about, a plea bargain that we suspect may have had an impact on the outcome, would the minister not admit that there was indeed a plea bargain?

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): I think that the member is making a statement. His preamble is considerably long for a question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. With the greatest respect to the honourable government House leader, the member was just about to pose his question, well within the guidelines that we operate under.

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister, having reviewed the record, understands that indeed there was a plea bargain, reducing the charge from criminal negligence causing death to dangerous driving causing death. The first charge attracts a maximum life sentence, a very serious charge. It was reduced to–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. The honourable member for St. Johns, please pose his question, and I was of the understanding he had done so, but had also taken the liberty of adding another lengthy preamble.

Would the honourable member please quickly pose his question.

* (1420)

Mr. Mackintosh: My question was interrupted by the government House leader.

My question to the minister is this: is the minister not concerned that by reducing the charge on a plea bargain from criminal negligence causing death to the drive dangerous section that this may well have determined or helped risk the outcome of a conditional sentence which was the unfortunate outcome? That is the question.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Again, now the member is weaseling in his words, and he says now it is dangerous driving causing death, which he knows the difference between the lowest of the dangerous driving, which is a six-month penalty, and dangerous driving caused death, which is 14 years. The Crown attorney who took a look at that case and who prosecuted that case and who is one of our best Crown attorneys says a guilty plea was accepted for dangerous driving caused death, in full satisfaction of the original charge, because the only evidence available would support that charge. So now the member again is twisting the words and trying to create an impression that this Crown attorney did less than his duty. It is regrettable that that is the way the member treats members of my department who only have the best interests of the victim and the victim's family in mind.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Mackintosh: A supplementary to the minister is: would he not consider the victims, the survivors in this matter? I ask him: who is misleading this House? Who is trying to escape accountability on a technicality? The charges were reduced on a plea bargain. Would the minister not understand that that undermines, that that reduced the seriousness of this matter before the court?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, here is a member who is a lawyer. He is an officer of the court. He understands what the ethical duty of a lawyer before the court is, and what does he suggest? That this lawyer, this Crown attorney, speaking on behalf of the people of Manitoba generally and the victim specifically, that the victim in some way was shortchanged because of the actions of the Crown attorney.

I know that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) also brought very misleading information, and I will deal with that information in a separate notice, but the evidence is what the Crown attorney has to base his decision on. The evidence justified the dangerous driving causing death, which is punishable, Madam Speaker, by a 14-year sentence, and for that member to suggest there was anything untoward about the conduct of the Crown attorney is degrading to the Crown attorney, it is degrading to the case and it is degrading to the victim.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister get a grip on the issue that is before this House and before Manitobans, and in getting off on some tangent and some misunderstanding of my questions, would he now explain, as well, Madam Speaker, to all Manitobans, particularly to the survivors, why it is–and this is based on our understanding of the mother of the victim–the government's new Victim Impact Statement Program was not explained to this family, to the mother, as she tells us, therefore, in addition to the plea bargain, risking the conditional sentence–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, again, the member chooses his words very carefully. Now he says: why was it not explained to the mother? He has forgotten about the family. In fact, the Crown attorney in this case did explain it to the family. I have information specifically that it was the father he communicated with and indeed that this communication took place several weeks in advance of the time when it was necessary for the family to appear in this particular hearing.

What troubles me more is that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) received a letter on May 4, explaining, Madam Speaker, what steps the Crown attorney took in respect to the victim and also explaining why there were delays in this particular case. The member for Radisson knows that those delays were justifiable. Yet she failed to bring that information to this House, suppressing that information.

Mr. Mackintosh: With a new question, Madam Speaker. We are concerned about the information that the minister is giving to this House. The minister should know that the information we have was given by Linda McEvoy, the mother of the victim. The minister appears to want to beat up on her.

Madam Speaker, my question to the minister is this–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe the member for St. Johns is imputing motives to the Minister of Justice. I would ask you to call him to order.

Mr. Mackintosh: Here is the minister who yesterday–

Madam Speaker: Order. Are you on the same point of order?

Mr. Mackintosh: No, I am raising the question, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader was up on a point of order, and I expected a rebuttal from the opposition side. That is why I recognized the honourable member for St. Johns, but if there is none, I will deal with the point of order now.

The honourable government House leader did not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, please pose your question now.

Mr. Mackintosh: To the Justice minister, Madam Speaker. Here is the minister who yesterday got up in the House, did not answer the questions, did not take the matter as notice, and said that the only remedy was for the family to complain to his department.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

Mr. Toews: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has just indicated that I did not take those questions as notice. In fact, I did. In his question to me and my response, I indicated: I will, as indicated, take the particulars of the matter as notice, in direct response to his question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice did not have a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member for St. Johns, please pose his question now?

Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister then explain, since yesterday he said that the family should just make a complaint under his so-called Victims' Rights Act, how it is that the family members can trust in a complaint process where the minister now has just got up in this House, dismissed the allegations of the mother of the victim? How can she trust a complaint process that the minister has prejudged?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have not dismissed the complaints of the victims. What I have dismissed is the scurrilous accusations of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). The member for St. Johns put erroneous information on the record. He indicated that there had been an untoward deal made that allowed someone to escape legal responsibility by pleading to a case of dangerous driving of the lowest sort, and that was clearly wrong. I dismissed that allegation. Indeed, I dismiss the allegations of the member for Radisson.

I say that we are concerned about victims. If there is a complaint which has not yet been filed, members of my department will take a look at that particular case.

* (1430)

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to draw your attention to Beauchesne 489 where the word "scurrilous," which was just used by the Minister of Justice, is an unparliamentary word. I would ask him to withdraw.

I would also ask him to answer the questions asked, which are asked on behalf of the family, on behalf of the people who have been victimized in this case, rather than attacking the person who is asking the question. He should do so now without having to be asked over and over again to deal with the substance of the issue.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.

Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of the issue about answering the victims' concerns, I certainly will answer the victims' concerns, but what has been demonstrated by both the record and by the comments today is that the member opposite put false information on the record.

In respect of the word "scurrilous," I withdraw the word "scurrilous."

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice.

Pesticides/Chemicals

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment.

The report of the federal environment commissioner released this week sounded alarm bells about the lack of environmental protection when it comes to the classification of pesticides and other chemicals. The commissioner cited cuts to federal research, noting that of 23,000 chemicals, only 67 have been researched so far.

My question to the minister: can the minister indicate whether she will be lobbying the federal government on behalf of Manitobans to ensure that funding for the classification of pesticides is immediately put in place?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the short answer to the question is yes. I mean, we have been doing that. We are in constant communication with other levels, other jurisdictions across the country. This is not new. This is something that has been ongoing. We are concerned that we would like to see the federal government move faster in certain of these areas. Having said that, of course, I would point out to the member that Manitoba has a very good record with those things that are within our jurisdiction that we have been able to address very well. I think the member is familiar with some of the programs we have to address those things. The short answer, yes, we are in communication with the federal government to hasten their endeavours in this regard. We work co-operatively with them and with other provinces to ensure a suitable end to this dilemma.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, given that the commissioner raised concerns about provincial governments being able to fulfill their role under federal-provincial agreements, can the minister indicate what auditing procedure she has undertaken to ensure that Manitobans are protected under these new harmonization agreements?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for the question and for his interest in this particular topic. I am pleased to see that he is showing some interest in some of these environmental issues because they are fundamentally important not just to Manitoba but to Canada, not just to Canada but to North America.

Indeed many of these issues are global in nature, as the member understands. We work in Manitoba. We have many programs through our pesticide container program, et cetera, working in harmony with other jurisdictions, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, in particular. Many of the issues that fall under federal jurisdiction, we are in constant communication with the federal minister, Minister Stewart, with whom we interact at the official level and at the ministerial level. We will be meeting again very soon with the ministers of the Environment to deal with these and many other issues. Again, the short answer to the question is yes.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.