Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty Kindergarten to Grade 12 students from Omega School under the direction of Mrs. Gloria Yaremkiewich. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

Also, seventy Grade 5 students from Southwood School under the direction of Mr. Don Thiessen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger).

Also, nine Grades 7 and 8 students from Philomene Chartrand School under the direction of Mrs. Sophie Ledoux. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).

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

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, retired Justice Monnin stated and I quote: in all my years on the bench, I never encountered more liars in the proceedings as I did in this inquiry.

Madam Speaker, today chief provincial Judge Webster states that the statements made by the Minister of Justice are "misleading and inaccurate" comments. I would like to ask the acting, acting, acting Premier whether he or she will table the letter from the Chief Justice, and why do we again see this pattern of inaccurate information according to the Chief Judge.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I, too, had occasion to read that article in the Winnipeg Free Press. Indeed, in response to that article, one of the members of the judicial nominating committee, indeed the individual referenced by the Chief Judge in what are purported to be her comments, phoned me, was extremely agitated and certainly felt his position had been unfairly portrayed.

He had confirmed with the office of the Chief Judge that indeed he was the one being referenced by the Chief Judge, and he wanted his position known in respect of the efforts that he had been making in order to ensure that the judicial committee moved along on a very timely basis. He indicated in his written correspondence that he made numerous suggestions to Chief Judge Webster to speed up the nomination process and also made a number of changes to his calendar to ensure that the judicial nominating process would proceed as quickly as possible.

* (1335)

Mr. Doer: I asked the minister or the Acting Premier to table the letter, and I would ask the minister again to table the letter. What have you got to hide? The Chief Judge of the province is saying that inaccurate statements had been made by the Minister of Justice. This is a huge issue of trust for the administration of justice in this province, and to sort of deflect away, Madam Speaker, I think the minister should have the integrity to table the letter in this House and make it public.

A year ago the Speaker ruled in this House that there was a series of inconsistencies with the member's statements, the Minister of Justice's statements, between the statements made in this House on May 7 and May 11, dealing with the initiation of the nominating process.

When will this minister be honest with the people of Manitoba, and why do we have to have the Chief Judge and the Speaker saying that this person is inconsistent and inaccurate with the people of this province?

Mr. Toews: I understand that that particular letter has in fact been released to members of the media, and indeed the court released those letters to members of the media, so the letter is already public. As a result of receiving that letter, which incidentally was received by the media prior to my having an opportunity to read it, I indeed asked my staff to gather together certain information which would in fact indicate that my statements are accurate, and I asked my staff to provide that material to me.

I was advised this morning that my staff has been unable to provide that material that they compiled, and they compile it for a number of reasons. Some include on behalf of the Chief Judge, and others they compile on behalf of my department for the appropriate administration of my department. I understand that that material had been removed by one of the Department of Justice officials at the direction of the Chief Judge and that the Chief Judge now holds this material. So I have written to the Chief Judge, before I can reply in respect of her particular letter, that I would like her to return that material to the office where it was formerly stored so that I can take that material and respond to the letter that in fact she sent to me. I table three copies of the letter that have I sent to the Chief Judge.

Mr. Doer: On May 28, 1998, dealing with the requests we made for months about the huge caseloads of Crown attorneys, in this House, the Minister of Justice said that this was not an issue raised with me by Mr. Hannon. Mr. Hannon then subsequently went on to say publicly that he was not misquoted in the media and that he had raised this issue with the minister for over a number of months.

We have a situation now where the Speaker has said that this Minister of Justice has given inconsistent statements to this House, the Chief Judge has said that inaccurate statements have been made by the Minister of Justice, the Crown attorneys have said that this person gave inaccurate statements about raising this issue with them prior to May 28, and now the Minister of Justice is saying the Chief Judge removed documents in an inappropriate way, and he has asked for them to be returned.

How can we have a tenable situation between a Minister of Justice and a Chief Judge in dispute? Which one, Madam Speaker, has lost their credibility with the people of this province and can no longer maintain their position?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, in fact, you heard my response to the last answer. That is not what I said. The member has misrepresented what I have stated very, very clearly here on the record. Indeed, what I have said to the Chief Judge, I have not indicated that the Chief Judge has taken those documents. I have indicated that those documents are presently in the possession of the Chief Judge.

I state in my letter to her that: "those records have been kept, maintained and stored by the Department for years. I understand that within the past short while, perhaps the last day or so, they have been removed from the possession of the department and have been placed into your possession. At the moment, it is unclear to me who made that request, what events have precipitated this removal, and the basis for it. I would like to . . . respond to your letter, and the comments that you have made, but find myself in a position of not being able to do so by virtue of the removal of the records from the Department to your office."

That is in fact what I have said. I have not indicated that there was anything untoward about the removal of the records. I am simply suggesting that I require those records to respond to the letter that was distributed by the court to the media.

* (1340)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice, who appears to be losing his backers over there, will the minister–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Acting Premier, on a point of order.

Hon. James McCrae (Acting Premier): The honourable member for St. Johns and his Leader both–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. For clarification, is that an accurate title for the–

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Madam Speaker: Okay. The honourable Acting Premier, on a point of order.

Mr. McCrae: On a point of order, even now from his seat, the Leader of the Opposition pokes fun at my acting status today. The honourable member for St. Johns refers to members not being in the Chamber. I think that, instead of poking fun at things like that, members of the New Democratic Party would be well advised to keep in mind the plight of farmers and other people in southwestern Manitoba right now who are, as we speak, being visited by members of this House. I think it does the New Democratic Party no service to be making fun of the plight of the farmers and others in an important region of our province and, at the very least, ought to be called to order for calling to attention absence of members from the House.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, we think the situation is serious, and I asked the Acting Premier a question and never received a response. The Acting Premier could have dealt with that when we asked the question. Point No. 2, we have raised as lead question the agricultural issue; we have raised it for weeks, and we will continue to raise it today.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Doer: Let me finish.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: Furthermore, we consider a dispute between the Chief Judge of Manitoba and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) a very serious issue of integrity, and we want it dealt with by members opposite.

Madam Speaker: Recently, in several rulings and to many people standing on points of order, I have asked that all members co-operate when speaking to points of order, to speak to the violation of the rule. I would once again remind the honourable Leader of the official opposition to speak to the point of order that was raised, which was reference that was made to members absent.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. That was the point raised by the honourable Acting Premier. I personally did not hear the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) reference members absent in the House, but that was the point of order raised by the Acting Premier.

I will take that point of order under advisement and check with Hansard and report back later.

Madam Speaker: Now the honourable government House leader, on a new point of order.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I think you have dealt with the matter at hand in your comments with respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, to the Minister of Justice and on the issue of his credibility.

While the minister had the nerve to tell this House last session that Manitoba was–and I think his words were–among the best when it comes to moving matters to trial quickly, Statistics Canada was meanwhile reporting that Manitoba had the worst youth court backlogs of all the provinces in the country. Now, Madam Speaker, the Provincial Court, we understand, is in a worse mess because of a shortage of judges. It is putting justice on hold and victimizing victims even more.

My question to the minister is: rather than pointing fingers, as this minister does for a living, would he consider the outrage and the words of the Chief Judge of Manitoba and admit that he is a big part of the problem?

* (1345)

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member has put erroneous information onto the record, and I wish to correct that. Indeed, what Statistics Canada indicates in respect of youth court is that variations can be explained in differences by charging practices. For example, Manitoba recorded the highest proportion of cases stayed. High proportions of cases stayed or withdrawn are often indicative of charges set aside pending completion of an alternative measures program. So what we do in the province of Manitoba is when someone has been charged in youth court with a particular offence that is capable of being diverted, that youth then is diverted. At the end of the entire period, at the end of the diversion period, at the end of the alternative measures program, the case is then stayed.

So that accounts to a large degree for the difference in terms of the practices. It does not indicate a problem in the courts. In fact, it indicates that not only do we utilize the regular court system, but in fact we utilize a diversion very effectively.

Mr. Mackintosh: How can this minister, who obviously wants to get onto another topic, Madam Speaker, possibly explain how he can have so little disregard for the functioning of our courts that he took two months to respond to an urgent request from the Chief Judge for more judges. So it took from February until March 31 to get the applications in, and then he appointed a representative on the nominating committee who could not fulfill his function until mid-July. Was he too busy writing his pre-election announcements?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, not only did I move in a very prompt manner in order to meet the judge's request for additional judges, three additional judges, we wanted to ensure that that funding was in place for those three positions. In fact, when I wrote the Chief Judge on that matter, I indicated the manner in which the appointments would have to be staggered in order to meet funding commitments. So that was a very important issue, and I think it was dealt with appropriately and in a prompt manner.

In respect of the member for St. Johns criticizing a community member who is volunteering his time, Mr. MacPherson was very upset by the allegations made against him. Here is a volunteer, a community member wanting to participate in the justice system, and what does he get? Criticism from the member for St. Johns of the worst kind. He has indicated in a document, which I intend to table in this House, the steps that he took in order to ensure that this process would move in a timely fashion.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who of course used and manipulated the Chief Judge once before for his own political ends and today accuses her or her office of taking documents from his office–

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I believe that the member is imputing motives, contrary to the appropriate citation in Beauchesne.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it is not a question of the member for St. Johns imputing motives. The member for St. Johns is simply stating the facts, that the minister will use and does use and is prepared to use his staff and anyone else in order to satisfy his own political purposes. So it is simply a dispute over the facts. It is not a question of motives; it is a question of fact. Besides, the minister did not cite any rule or citation confirming his position.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Justice, I indeed will take the matter under advisement to check the context within which the words were spoken by the honourable member for St. Johns.

* (1350)

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

Mr. Mackintosh: How can this minister, who the Chief Judge says made, and I quote, "misleading and inaccurate" statements–she lacks confidence in this minister. How can such a minister have the confidence of those who work in the justice system and those who rely on it?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there were certain statements made in a letter addressed to me that was distributed by the court to members of the media. The content of that letter is well known and well circulated. I have asked for certain information, information that my department regularly compiles, for example, to assess the number of preliminaries in the overall system and the overall impact of the system if there are amendments to be made to the Criminal Code. What essentially this documentation does–and I have other copies of this type of information that I have received on other occasions. It talks about the commencement of the courts and the termination of the courts on an hourly basis directly attributable to the comments that are under discussion. Those were in the Department of Justice, have been in the Department of Justice for a number of years. For some reason they have been removed into the possession of the Chief Judge. I simply want those documents in order to respond.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I dare say that in all of the history of the province, of all the Attorneys General and Justice ministers, the episode and the character displayed by this Minister of Justice is unprecedented.

Madam Speaker, the minister is challenging the very nature of the fundamental relationship between the government and the judicial system. How does the Minister of Justice explain, because he has been criticized, making public a letter accusing the Chief Judge or the Chief Judge's department of taking records from his department that would allow him to respond to a letter, doing it publicly and using it as a political defence because of criticism that has been levelled at him? That is unprecedented and–

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

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, it is not I who has stated this alone, but I have indeed a memorandum from one of my departmental staff who also acts as the executive director in respect of Judicial Services. The memo in respect of a request for Provincial Court statistics indicated that the Chief Judge instructed, and a certain clerk is named in here, to deliver the files to the Chief Justice's office as soon as possible on June 10, 1999. In fact, they were delivered this morning to the Chief Judge's office.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, the minister has not tabled the letter from the Chief Justice, but will he table the letter? You know, the rules clearly indicate that if members should refer and quote from a letter and memo, the member must table it. I am asking the minister to table that correspondence.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I do not have the appropriate number of copies, but I am prepared to not only table that memorandum which was sent to me by Lavonne Ross, the acting executive director, and Carol Abbott, director of judicial support, Judicial Services, as well as the memorandum from my deputy to the assistant deputy minister of Court Services Division, both dated June 10.

Madam Speaker: The point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan has been dealt with.

* (1355)

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

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary, I would like to ask a question of the Acting Premier and the former Justice minister, if perhaps he could explain to me, if he is aware of any instance in the history of Manitoba where a Justice minister has done what this Justice minister did today, by virtue of tabling a letter in the House, accusing the Chief Judge of removing documents from his office, and did not deal with it in private, and in discussions with the Chief Justice rather than trying to make a political issue out of it in order to save his political hide. Can he answer that question?

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member has indicated that I have made some imputation of impropriety against the Chief Judge. I have not done so. I have quoted the letter that I sent in response to a request for certain documentation, and what I indicated is that it is unclear to me who made the request, what events have precipitated this removal and the basis for it. I simply want to know the answer.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice does not have a point of order. I believe the question was put.

Mr. Toews: I think what has to be borne in mind in this particular case is that the Chief Judge wrote a letter to me. I respected that confidence until I realized that this letter had been distributed to the entire media. Now it was not indicated on the letter that in fact copies were given to the media, and in order to respond effectively to that, I required some information. I wrote, or I contacted my staff to provide me information which from time to time they do provide me with exactly this information. In fact, I have a copy of one such document here, and the reply I received was that I was not entitled to material that my department routinely uses in order to do a number of things, and that I was led to believe by the documentation that I have before me, that at the request of the Chief Judge it was removed to her offices. Now I am simply saying I need that information in order to respond to the letter that she sent.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, on a new question?

Mr. Chomiak: Yes, my final supplementary, Madam Speaker.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Chomiak: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My final supplementary, again to the Acting Premier or the Minister of Justice, and the question is: does the Acting Premier, a former Justice minister, think it is appropriate for a Justice minister to table a letter, to make public a letter accusing the Chief Justice of the province of Manitoba of taking files and not providing him with files in order to defend their political position, and would it not be more appropriate and would deal with the question of the administration of justice for the Justice minister to not undertake that activity in order to save his own political skin?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as I had indicated to the newspaper yesterday, I was not prepared to release my response to the Chief Judge because I respected the confidentiality that she placed in writing that letter, and if she wanted to release my letter in response to that letter, that was indeed her choice and I left that open to her. However, when I found out that I could not access the information I required to respond to her–and the member has now asked me to table these letters. I have tabled them. I have been open with this House, and I will continue to be open with this House.

* (1400)

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, for the past several weeks we have raised the issue of the serious flooding situation in the southwest part of the province on behalf of those farmers. But to date, we have not had any answers from this government as to how they are going to deal with this situation. There are things that this government could be doing to help the farmers.

I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture why we are not looking at the unseeded acreage clause of crop insurance and offering Manitoba farmers what Saskatchewan farmers have, and that is a payment of $25 per acre for their unseeded acres. It is a standard policy in Saskatchewan. Why do we not have it here?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Acting Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, this is a situation that is evolving as time goes on in the province of Manitoba. As we have increased the deadline for seeding dates, we are seeing that the rains continue to fall, and indeed there are more lands that are being impacted by this devastating natural situation. Indeed, it would be far too early for us to jump in and indicate that this is the finite amount of money or this is the finite area that is going to be encompassed in any kind of assistance that is going to be offered.

Madam Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of our province, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), ministers from this government are indeed consulting with municipal leaders, with farm leaders, with ordinary farmers and producers in Manitoba, with suppliers of agricultural products to see just what it is that a government such as ours might be able to do in a situation like this. This is an unprecedented situation.

Madam Speaker, I might also add that we have called upon the federal minister not only to pay some attention to Manitoba but indeed to pay attention to this geographic region of Canada to see what it is the federal government can do, because they have a serious responsibility in this matter.

Ms. Wowchuk: I do not deny that the federal government has a responsibility; they certainly do.

Madam Speaker, given that farmers have complained about the unseeded acres policy under our crop insurance plan for many years, and very few people are taking this program because it is just not very useful, will the government consider changing that clause so we will have a similar program to Saskatchewan where, if they cannot seed, they get a $25-an-acre payment after the seeding deadline is finished? That would get money to their hands in June.

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

Mr. Derkach: There is no way that we can impact the unseeded acreage coverage for this particular economic disaster in rural Manitoba. But let me say that this is a question that is probably more appropriate for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to consider in the due course of time as we move through finding solutions to this very serious matter in all of the western side of this province. I will take that part of the question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and ensure that the member gets a complete answer to that.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Given that there is such a serious financial crunch for these people, and they have seeded, can the minister indicate whether his government has taken the position that we should be able to access NISA funds for a one-time access without a penalty fee?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Acting Minister of Agriculture): That is precisely why I indicated in my first response that we have to consider all of the areas of support to agriculture that are available today from the provincial and federal governments and see what kinds of adjustments need to be made in order for producers to be able to access dollars over the course of the next 18 months, because this is not a situation that is going to resolve itself over the course of the next six months or so. This is a situation that we are going to be facing in the next year and a half in this province. We have to make sure that whatever programs we come up with are going to be able to sustain these people on the farm over the course of that period of time.

Madam Speaker, nobody harvests a crop at this time of the year. We are simply putting a crop in, so the impact of all of this natural disaster, if you like, economic disaster, is not going to be felt in the next six months and could be over the next 18 months or so.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Due to questions that I asked yesterday and the day prior, late last night I got a call from a constituent of mine who relayed that the teacher who has been demoted has now been given a gag order and told not to talk to me any longer. The integrity of our standards exams are put at risk. There is a human story that is being missed. The government today is being motivated only because it happens to be the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party.

My question for the Department of Education, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer) is to acknowledge that today more than ever there is in fact a need to have an arm's length investigation. I am asking the Minister of Education to provide–

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

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Any suggestion of a gag order would be of pretty significant concern to myself, and there is indeed not the human dimension of this being missed by myself or anybody on this side of the House. These matters do affect real live human beings who have families and reputations and those sorts of things, and we do take it seriously.

I do resent a little bit the suggestion on the part of the honourable member for Inkster about political permutations. It was he who raised that matter in his questions yesterday that this whole issue has political implications. It was not me; it was the honourable member for Inkster who made that point yesterday, true though it is. I am not saying that there are not political implications because the person, the wrongdoer, the admitted wrongdoer here, is the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party, one Brian O'Leary, who, after this incident, instead of being–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I believe that the question is very simple and straightforward. Given the comments that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself put on the record two days ago, any sort of investigation, whether it is by the school division–and I ask the Minister of Education to acknowledge this. Any investigation by the school division or this department, in my opinion, would be nothing more than a farce. What is needed–and I am asking the Minister of Education to initiate an independent investigation.

An Honourable Member: We will pass that on.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will he do that today? Please do pass it on.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member's point is well taken. I read in the Winnipeg Sun today that Seven Oaks Superintendent John Wiens maintains O'Leary's actions did not cause any harm, therefore no action should be taken against him. It kind of says something about maybe what we can expect in the report coming in a week or so, lending credence to the demand being made here by the honourable member for Inkster.

* (1410)

Nonetheless, out of an abundance of fairness, I think it is appropriate that we await the report from the Seven Oaks School Division before making such a decision. But given the hint that we have been given by Superintendent Wiens about how he views the situation even before the report is made available to me, I can see why the honourable member for Inkster would be making this request today.

But I repeat: the silence on the part of the New Democrats on this one is deafening, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I pose the question to the Minister of Education. The real lack of action by this government is what is really and truly disgraceful. What we want from this government–and I ask for the Minister of Education to acknowledge that the politics, the very politics of this particular issue do not allow for the teacher's best interests to be represented, either the principal or the teacher that has been demoted, and that what is really needed is an independent investigation. Let us not waste time. Let us act on it today, and I ask the Minister of Education to do what is right.

Mr. McCrae: Given the human dimensions involved, the perception that the wrongdoer is rewarded and the perception that the whistle-blower is being punished, I can certainly understand the honourable member's feelings. The handling of the matter by the government is not indeed disgraceful, but there are processes, and we are attempting to follow those processes. But, Madam Speaker, I am given reason to be a little bit doubtful about the investigation that is being carried out when we already know the position of the superintendent of Seven Oaks School Division.

I disagree with anybody who says breaching the rules, breaching around security protocols does not do anybody any harm. Madam Speaker, what message does that send to every single teacher in this province, every single student in this province when the principal of a school can breach security, admittedly, and be found that he has done nothing wrong? That is a very bad message to be sending out to anybody involved in our school system in Manitoba.

I simply say to the honourable member that I think he needs also, as I do, to await that report before moving further at this point.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Paper staking has proven to be disastrous to many independent and small exploration companies and would have a serious negative economic impact to communities like Bissett, which services many exploration activities. That is why we have strongly opposed paper staking on this side of the House and have urged the government to learn from other jurisdictions which have proved the paper staking to be a huge mistake.

Will the minister immediately commit his government to end his so-called self-regulation and put an end to what is de facto paper staking?

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): For my final supplementary: will the minister acknowledge that The Mines Act has not been enforced and, in fact, that penalties identified in the act, such as fines up to $10,000 and the laying of criminal charges, will not be applied in this case because The Mines Act is unenforceable? Why does this government make laws it is not willing to enforce?

Hon. David Newman (Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam Speaker, The Mines Act of Manitoba, which is regarded as one of the best in the country, particularly in relation to sustainable development, does have enforcement powers or punitive powers under, as described, and whether or not those can be enforced is a matter that is in the hands of the Justice department right now. The facts of this particular situation that the honourable member for St. James is referring to, with respect to whether or not there has been a violation of the Criminal Code for declaring a false declaration, is another matter that is under consideration, so stay tuned and a decision will be made by the Department of Justice in this respect through its prosecutorial branch.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, the McEvoy family whose daughter and sister, Erica, was killed in front of Club Regent, last May, expressed to me their frustration and disappointment at the way the Minister of Justice responded to their complaints about how they experienced the justice system in Manitoba. He brushed aside their questions about the delays and the number of remands, the lack of victim input and assistance by saying that they had no complaints until NDP MLAs got involved.

I want to ask the minister if he will apologize to the family. They have asked for an apology. Will he consider the way that his comments have affected their hope and optimism about justice in their case?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I think that this government has demonstrated not only in word but in deed how we are concerned about victims, and in respect of this particular case, I know that it was a particularly terrible tragedy. I would encourage the McEvoy family, if there is any concern about how the Justice department treated them, I would encourage them to file a complaint, the results of which ultimately are placed before this Legislature in a report. The strength of the complaint process in our act is unparalleled to any act in Canada. We feel very deeply for the McEvoy family, and we want to ensure that they receive the best possible service from the Department of Justice.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the Minister of Justice: how can he assure the McEvoy family that their complaint, which they plan to file, will be viewed impartially and not with the defensive, partisan attitude that he has expressed in the House and in the media.

Mr. Toews: Well, you see, Madam Speaker, they want me to become directly, politically involved in the process that does not allow for that.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Cerilli: Quickly, on a point of order, the minister should not impute motives, political or otherwise, when I am raising a matter on behalf of my constituents in this House.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: I do not want to get politically involved in the process as is suggested by the New Democratic member. I want to ensure that there is a fair process in the hearing of any of these complaints because ultimately the result of that process is tabled here in the Legislature. It serves no interest for me to get involved in an inappropriate way. I want that result of that investigation here so that if there is any type of way that we can improve our service, we want to do that.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): This is a very serious matter before Manitobans in this House today respecting the issue once again of the minister's credibility. We had the issue of his threatening a striker. He denied it, and then he expressed regret. He said he was never told of problems in prosecutions. The representative of the prosecutors said he was told many times. He contradicted himself the last time he and the Chief Judge got into a spat.

The issue today, and this is my question: would the minister explain to Manitobans if he told the media that he took the request from the Chief Judge for three additional judges immediately to Treasury Board? If that is true, why did it take two months to reply to the Chief Judge?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): What in fact happened, if my recollection is clear on this, and if I in any way misrepresent anything, I will come back to this House and explain that very fully. But, as I understand it, when the Chief Judge wrote the request to me for those three additional positions, that request then went through the due process in the department, and it went to cabinet. As a result of discussions in cabinet, I had further discussions with the Minister of Finance. The discussions with the Minister of Finance resulted in the way the letter was drafted to the Chief Judge in respect of the three appointments and the staggering of the appointments. That is what happened, and I do not think that there was any undue delay on my part. I believe that every time the court has requested judges, we have provided those judges.

* (1420)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who took two months to respond, now admit that the issue of credibility is directed at him? That is the issue before Manitobans, and why is he raising this issue of a red herring about the Chief Judge taking documents from his office? Is that just an act of revenge? I ask him to table the letter from the Chief Judge.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I find myself in the position that I gave an undertaking that I would not disclose that letter. Now I understand the Chief Judge has disclosed it to members of the media, and I will take it under advisement whether it would be appropriate for me to release that letter in view of the fact that the judge or the court has released that particular letter.

This is not an issue of credibility. This is an issue of my being able to access the documents that were formerly within one of my employee's possession, documents that our department uses for a number of purposes and which are no longer there. I simply need those documents in order to respond to the letter that was made to me.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.