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 thirty-seven Grade 9 students from Sir Winston Churchill School in Thunder Bay, Ontario, under the direction of Mr. Jim Jack.
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
Rate Increase
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, last year, or two years ago, when Mr. Nugent's testimony was presented in this House, Mr. Ross Nugent honestly stated that the new private telephone system would go through a rate shock for consumers. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) answered that issue by saying Mr. Nugent was wrong, and that there would be rate increases based only on service for the future and so-called rate rebalancing. We asked a number of times on the impact of taxation policy on a private company versus a public company, and the Premier basically said it would not have any impact on consumers.
I would like to ask the Acting Premier: why has the telephone system application or the telecom system application to the CRTC, why is it now said there will be a massive increase in rates for consumers based on consideration of the new company, and why are they proposing that the consumers of Manitoba pay between $8 million next year and $38 million in the future per year to deal with the Tory mistruth, again, on the Manitoba Telephone System?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Well, again, Madam Speaker, it is the Leader of the Opposition who is absolutely incorrect with some of the information that he puts on the record. I encourage him to look at some of the information that was put out back on April 1 of this year when Manitoba Telecom Services outlined this entire issue. In fact, it was covered in at least some of the local media, April 2 article on the front page of one of our local papers, so I encourage him to look at some of that to get a better understanding of the issue.
But I think the message for consumers is that the process of going before the CRTC was the same process under private ownership and public ownership. That process does work, because if you look at the last rate request from MTS, they made a rate request increase of $3. CRTC approved a rate increase of 84 cents. As a result, today we continue to have the lowest residential rates of any of the major telephone companies in all of Canada right here in the province of Manitoba. So that process works, and in terms of any future rate adjustments, any future rate requests, Manitoba Telecom Services--
An Honourable Member: Why do you not just give Tom a call?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) just continues to--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: Well, I would like to thank the minister responsible for the golden share for that answer, Madam Speaker, but he did not answer the question. I asked the specific question about what the impact of tax provisions for a private company would be on the Manitoba consumer.
The document tabled that we have received indicates there will be, and I quote: a dramatic increase in the future when MTS incurs actual income tax expenses, a dramatic increase for the consumers of this province, something that we alleged and members opposite denied. Mike Harris did not sell Ontario Hydro because of the tax considerations. We have a delayed tax impact, but we have a tax impact.
Will the minister confirm that $38 million that will be incurred by the local consumers, will he verify what that will be for the local consumers who will have to bear the price of a broken Tory promise and Tory ideology?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition is incorrect. At the time of the privatization, we talked about a one-time tax adjustment that Manitoba Telecom Services would have in terms of writing off a pension adjustment to the level of some $360 million. We said at that time it was our expectation that the benefactors of that would be the consumers here in Manitoba, and that has been the case. In fact, MTS made a request in their last rate application, as the member recalls, for some shareholder entitlement relative to this tax issue and CRTC turned that down. They did not grant that application to Telecom Services, again proving very clearly that the process of going before the CRTC is there to protect consumers, is there to make companies ensure that any adjustments they are requesting are legitimate ones.
But again, members opposite have difficulty accepting the fact that companies should pay taxes, and they fail to recognize that when companies pay taxes, they pay them either to the federal government or to the provincial government, and those taxes are spent very wisely in the province of Manitoba on health care, on education, on support to families, things that are very important to all Manitobans.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the member will know that the public Crown corporations in Manitoba have the lower rates because one of the factors is they do not have the shareholders' entitlement, the greedy kinds of conditions that shareholders and executives look at. If members opposite do not think the enhanced share option plan is greedy, let them stand up and say so. They also have the taxes to pay, as opposed to those rates staying lower. The figure in the document is $38 million. The government never had the intestinal fortitude to table that in the House. They knew there would be a delayed impact on taxation policy for the new private company. Would the member confirm that $38 million a year, when the delayed impact takes place, will be close to a 30 percent rate increase or a dollar per year over the next six years, a 30 percent rate increase for average consumers, seniors and others on fixed income because of the Tory broken promise and ideology?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, nobody has ever denied that under private ownership Manitoba Telecom Services ultimately would pay income taxes. In fact, today that industry, about 70 percent of the business that the Manitoba Telecom Services is in is in a very competitive environment where every company that they compete with pays taxes to either the provincial government here in Manitoba or to the federal government, so that has never been denied. But we have said very clearly, there is a process for Manitoba Telecom Services to go through with CRTC where they have to justify any of their expenditures and any of their rate adjustments.
That process has worked very well in terms of the recent examples we have in Manitoba, and as a result, today we continue to have the lowest residential rates in all of Canada right here in the province of Manitoba, in large part as a result of that very important process.
Rate Increase
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): It is interesting that the minister talks about rates and the CRTC. It was this caucus, it was 50 municipal councils and it was the MSOS who spoke out against those rates. The government said nothing, and it is amazing because, when it comes to stock options, that golden share speaks awfully loudly, Madam Speaker.
I want to ask the minister directly this time, because we are not going to let him wriggle off it on this one: will he pick up the phone and phone the chair of the board, Tom Stefanson? Will he phone the government appointees on the board, reappointed again today at the shareholders' meeting and tell them that we, the people of Manitoba, say no to what will result in a $6-a-month rate increase because of MTS's application?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, again I do not accept necessarily any of the figures put on the record by the member for Thompson in terms of his past experience with providing information on this issue or any other issue to this House.
I have said very clearly the process is the same under private ownership as it is under public ownership in terms of going before the CRTC. The opportunity to appear, whether it is the Canadian association of consumers, Manitoba Society of Seniors, is available to organizations like that, and if they have the kinds of concerns that are outlined and they have outlined some concerns today, I certainly encourage them to do exactly what they are suggesting they will do, and that is to make representation and appear before the CRTC committee because that is the regulatory process. That is the one that is available to all citizens, all consumers, if they have any concerns about Manitoba Telecom Services.
Mr. Ashton: As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister responsible for MTS whether he has contacted the chair of the board, Tom Stefanson, the board appointees of the government, and asked them to take the money they want for the increases out of the gold-plated stock option program and not out of further rate increases for Manitobans.
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, we do not get involved in the day-to-day operations of Manitoba Telecom Services, nor should we. We have examples of other government-run enterprises when the people opposite had their hands in them, whether it was the forestry industry in the North or ManOil in western Canada. We are still paying for the debt on the mismanagement of people like that across the way.
We have a board of directors of 11 individuals, 11 reputable people from right across this province. There are some 70 million shares that have been invested in by thousands and thousands of Manitobans who continue to hold this corporation accountable for their decisions. In fact, the annual general meeting was just today, here in the city of Winnipeg, where roughly one-third of the shares issued were represented, either by proxy or in direct attendance at the meeting. I am led to believe that those shareholders today ratified the reappointment of the board by some 99.5 percent, so that is the opportunity that is available to them, as shareholders, as consumers to either appear before the CRTC or as shareholders to make representation at the annual meeting of Manitoba Telecom Services.
Mr. Ashton: The only ones with their hands in anybody's pockets are people like Tom Stefanson and senior officials at MTS.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Thompson he was recognized for a final supplementary question, to which no preamble is permissible.
* (1345)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): As a final question, and I ask the minister responsible for MTS, who spent two weeks trying to deflect his direct responsibility as minister responsible for MTS for that stock option program: who represented him at the meeting today, and did that person go in there with a clear message for the minister to scrap that unacceptable million-dollar-plus program for people like Tom Stefanson and others who should not be getting that kind of money at the expense of the ratepayers, the people that have to pay for those phone increases?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): The proxy issued on behalf of the Province of Manitoba for the meeting today of Manitoba Telecom Services outlined the same two individuals as the previous proxy. The direct appointment was Mr. Julian D. Benson, the secretary to Treasury Board, and the alternate appointment is J. Patrick Gannon, the Deputy Minister of Finance.
The only issue before the annual meeting today where we had the opportunity to vote as a special sharer under our special share in a separate class again was the nomination and appointment of four out of the 11 members of the board of directors. We reappointed the same four people who we believe are outstanding Manitobans: Mr. Robert Chipman, Ashleigh Everett, Don Penny and Sam Schellenberg. Those were the provisions under the special share. In terms of operating decisions, we did not participate in operating decisions. The issue that the member raises, I am led to believe was not an issue that was on the agenda or was raised specifically today at the annual meeting.
Compensation
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, yesterday the National Assembly in Quebec supported the extension on compassionate grounds of the existing compensation program for all victims of contaminated blood who were not covered by the existing program.
This morning Ontario indicated that it was prepared to support Quebec's call for compensation for more people. On Monday, the Minister of Health, when referring to the federal government, said in committee, and I quote him: if they are prepared to live up to their responsibility, the provinces certainly are, I am sure, and would be prepared to meet with them to discuss this further. Certainly I would be.
I would like to table the Quebec resolution, and I would like to ask this Minister of Health if he is willing to join his colleagues from Ontario and Quebec and pressure the federal government to return to the table and reconsider the compensation package for people living with hepatitis C to include all those who acquired hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood. Is the minister prepared to do that?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, first of all, the resolution that was passed by the National Assembly in Quebec and the kind of word we are hearing from Ontario is a resolution that offers no provincial participation in an expansion of that plan but asks for the federal government, who the Krever report indicated has the lion's share of responsibility in this area, to endeavour to expand that particular plan. If the federal Liberal government wishes to do that, and the only caveat--and I have put it on this House, that if they were to do that, that is certainly their business. I am not going to tell them what to do with it, but it would have to be new money. I would not want to see a situation where a national government took money out of transfers to provinces to pay for an expansion in coverage in essence in our health care system. So, if the government of Mr. Chretien wishes to endeavour to do that, certainly they are not going to listen one way or the other to the advice of Manitoba. They are free to do that as long as, I would say, it would be new money.
Ms. McGifford: The minister really dances around the question.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Osborne pose her supplementary question now, please.
* (1350)
Ms. McGifford: Yes, Madam Speaker. I asked the minister if he would join his colleagues, put pressure on the federal minister to return to the table and discuss the extension of compensation for all victims of hepatitis C. This is the commitment he made on the record on Monday. Would he live up to his commitment?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, my commitment has always been that if federal and provincial ministers of Health meet to discuss any issue, I will be there, but also part of our comments that were in committee where we discussed this was the prerequisite of course that the national government had to be there with money. We have heard the Prime Minister, and he has confirmed with his actions recently what I have been saying from the beginning of this, that the national government, who bears the lion's share of responsibility, never came to the table with the intention of doing other than compensating those individuals for whom there was a negligence in the system, and the dollars and actions that they have taken all the way through have proven that. Let us not forget that, although this is a tremendous tragedy for the individuals involved, the provincial governments today, collectively, are there with some $1.6 billion in health care costs that we are having to pay with not one penny, not one penny of support from Mr. Chretien and the federal Liberals.
Ms. McGifford: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us exactly how many Manitobans with hepatitis C were infected before January 1, 1986. If he does not have those figures, which seem to be so important in this compensation package, would he endeavour to get them, put them before the people of Manitoba so that we can really understand this issue and understand the minister's position and his refusal to extend compensation to all Manitobans?
Mr. Praznik: What the member does not seem to recognize, again, despite our discussing this for many hours, is that the lead in this particular package and the lion's share of responsibility rests with the federal government, that the provinces have only been the purchasers of blood. The operators of the system, or the Canadian Red Cross Society who in essence are bankrupt, and the national government who had the regulatory authority, they have to bear their responsibility, and they rarely do that in most cases.
Madam Speaker, I would just like to table for the benefit of the member--just to put this in perspective of what others are doing in the country--this wire story from Saskatchewan, and I quote, "Taking a page from the federal Liberals, Saskatchewan's NDP government Tuesday voted down a motion proposing hepatitis C compensation be extended to all victims of the disease. They instead voted in support of an 'expression of sympathy' for those who got the virus from tainted blood. The Saskatchewan exercise was something of a mirror image of a federal one played out Tuesday in the House of Commons, where the Liberals survived a vote of confidence . . . Except that in Saskatchewan, it was the NDP that declined opposition requests the matter be put to a free vote, and the Liberals who criticized the decision . . . NDP backbencher Andrew Thomson argued his government is showing compassion by providing ongoing health care to all victims."
Trial--Jury Selection
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I had the opportunity of sitting with the family of the late Dorothy Martin yesterday in The Pas, and they indeed were disappointed with the outcome of the trial of Gerald Wilson Jr., and indeed have a lot of questions about the entire system and the administration of justice to aboriginal people in the province of Manitoba.
One area that I would like to touch upon this afternoon, Madam Speaker, is on the jury selection in this particular murder. We all know in this Chamber that 50 percent of the town of The Pas is made up of aboriginal people, and seven years ago the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in their recommendations cited that as a need to be addressed. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what efforts his government have made in attempting to meet these recommendations.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think the member raises a very important question. The issue of jury selection, of course, is fundamental to the administration of justice. I know that, generally speaking and in this particular case, there was a concerted effort to ensure that there was a panel from which to draw jury members, the panel being representative of the community. Clearly, the issue of who actually sits on any particular jury is a matter to be determined by the lawyers on both sides of the case, and I understand that process was proceeded with, and the issue that the member raises I believe was dealt in a very appropriate fashion.
* (1355)
Mr. Robinson: As I said, the Martin family indeed are very concerned. I would like to read a portion of a victim impact statement by the daughter of the late Dorothy Martin, Summer Rose Martin. She says: I feel like my family is breaking apart without my mom or my heart cracks in half. My feelings are not very strong anymore without my mom. I feel that everything inside of me is part of my mother. I miss my mom a lot.
That was part of what was heard in the courtroom yesterday. If indeed what the minister is saying on the subject of juries, why was there not a noticeable presence of First Nations or aboriginal people on the jury during the Gerald Wilson trial?
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I can indicate that the process follows a very clearly defined procedure. The issue of appropriate community representation is always borne in mind, and certainly my departmental officials are very aware of that particular issue.
I do want to say that I certainly--my sympathy goes to the family in particular, and indeed the family was very thankful for the job that the Crown attorneys did in that particular case and thanked them in a very formal ceremony. I know that the family went through a very difficult time, but I know that they were very pleased with the job that the Crown attorneys did in that particular case.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister as well--the government's Crown counsel, the ones that prosecuted this case, did ask for an adjournment sometime during the trial to question the make-up and the composition of the jury. I would like to ask the minister if indeed it was his department that asked them to withdraw that argument that they had.
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, if the member is in any way suggesting that any political official in any way had any input into that trial, I can certainly indicate that no political official had any involvement in that trial because it would be inappropriate for a political official, including the Attorney General, to become involved in any specific case and the prosecution of any particular case. I know that Crown attorneys will have discussions as professionals amongst each other about the particular conduct of a case. That happens on a regular basis and I encourage that.
Compensation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health regarding the hepatitis C issue.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health acknowledges that the Krever report indicated that in fact the federal government had the lion's share and the federal government had to play the leading role. But he also acknowledges that the federal government has to take some responsibility. What I am asking the minister today is to also take responsibility. Equally, the province had a responsibility for that. They also have a responsibility for those that fall outside of that time frame.
My question to the Minister of Health is to acknowledge that the provincial government has a leadership responsibility to do something for those that were infected by hepatitis C that fall outside that time frame.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, let us talk about responsibility past and present for a moment. Anyone who examines the Canadian blood system and how it operated in the past recognizes that the operator of that system was the Canadian Red Cross Society, which was an independent operator. The national government, with its constitutional responsibilities, was the regulator. They were the ones who were to ensure that the operator managed in a manner that produced safe products, as safe as possible, for the Canadian public. What was the role of the provinces? We, in essence, were the purchasers through hospitals. Actually, we were not even the direct purchasers; it was our hospitals that we fund, who in itself are independent, who purchase blood and blood products for the citizens in our respective jurisdictions.
So what influence, what role did we have in how the system operated? Minimum at best. So the responsibility for blood in Canada has not been a provincial responsibility, only in the sense that we have been the purchasers. Madam Speaker, we now accept that that old system does not work, and we as provincial governments are becoming the builders of a new Canadian blood system that we will be responsible for in the future as operators.
* (1400)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the minister says minimum--
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the Minister of Health is: will the Minister of Health acknowledge--when he says "minimum at best" for the Krever report, in other words, because of the courts it is minimum at best--that he does have a role outside of that time frame and he does have a responsibility to do something for individuals infected with hepatitis C outside of that time frame?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, would the member propose that if a pharmaceutical manufacturer produced a product that did not work, the provincial government should be responsible for the work of that manufacturer or the national government who regulates that product? Just compare the analogy. If the member would just think for a moment and compare it to other parts of the system. Even the New Democrats have not asked us to take that responsibility. We, as Manitobans in our health care system, do provide today for virtually universal coverage in our health care system for people who are injured or ill, no matter how they came down with that illness, and as provinces we are investing or spending some $1.6 billion just for that group of people where there was a negligence. Add to that what we will be spending for the others that he speaks about. So every provincial government today is there providing dollars without one penny of support from the federal Liberals, because these are all marginal dollars and are not added to our transfer payments that are capped.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that we compensated people for the flood of the century, not because there was a legal mandate to do that; we did it because we live in a compassionate society, and the provincial government took on responsibility? What we are asking is for the government to also look at the compassionate arguments of this particular issue and acknowledge that there is a need to show some compassion and to assist individuals with hepatitis C--[interjection] The province. We are talking about the provincial government, not what is happening in Ottawa. Understand.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, never in this House have I seen such an advocate for a federal offload of responsibility as I have just witnessed. Let us not for one moment--and this is a very serious debate, and I have to thank all honourable members on both sides of the House who have been participating in it in Estimates. We have had a very good debate on principle and issue and ramifications. It has been an excellent one, and I congratulate the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for bringing her resolution. But just for one moment let us look at the context.
We as Canadians do provide a very extensive safety net for Canadians when they become ill. We provide free medical care. In Manitoba we provide home care; we provide Pharmacare support. On a national basis, the Canada Pension Plan provides income replacement with disability. So we have a variety of tax credits.
So we already have a very extensive safety net, whether you are injured or with hepatitis C, cancer, lung cancer, heart problems and cannot work. We do provide today a safety net. So let not for one moment the member opposite imply that there is nothing there. There is an extensive safety net in place today for whoever is unable to work or is ill.
Murder Investigation--Compensation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, after learning that the investigation into the death of Dorothy Martin might not go anywhere, hired an investigator. This investigator became quite instrumental in identifying areas which became part of the overall RCMP investigation.
My question to the Minister of Justice today is: would he consider acknowledging the usefulness of the work done by the Swampy Cree Tribal Council and reimburse the tribal council for its costs?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, I know that the council did what they did out of a profound sense of concern, and I certainly share their sense of concern that every homicide is thoroughly investigated and brought to the appropriate legal authorities. I am not aware of the extent of the work done by this particular individual, but I know that this matter is still before the courts, as has been announced by the prosecutor. There may well be an appeal of the sentence, and I do not think it is appropriate to discuss this case in any detail.
Family Notification Recommendation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Given that the AJI recommended--and I would like to quote a little bit from their recommendation. That is, it says: a better way to have approached the problem of breaking the tragic news would have been for the officer to approach the chief of the band or someone else at the band office, tell him or her the news and ask that someone familiar with the person accompany the officer. In this way the bereaved could be informed in her own language by someone she knew. Such a person would also know what kind of family or community support might be most appropriate.
My question to the minister is: why has this recommendation not become a matter of policy by now?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the way that the various victims' services operations have operated throughout the province. I had occasion to speak to the Victims Services people up in The Pas and indeed up in Thompson, and I know that in a number of recent very important cases those personnel, along with the RCMP, did a very admirable job of ensuring that the family was advised and kept apprised of a particular situation in a very sensitive way.
So I think that we have learned much from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I think that document continues to guide much of my thinking and my government's thinking in terms of what needs to be done. In respect of any matters in which we can improve our communication and our sensitivity to victims, this government will certainly consider all such steps.
RCMP Investigation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, my last question to the Minister of Justice is this. At what point in the RCMP investigation did the Department of Justice become aware that there were problems in the investigation, and what action, if any, did the minister take to correct these very serious inadequacies in the investigation and by so doing would have ensured that justice was carried out?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, I can assure this House that if any issues of impropriety or allegations of impropriety--without reflecting on any particular case--if any such allegations are brought to my attention, I do refer that to the deputy minister and he then to the Crown attorneys responsible for any particular case. So, if the member is ever aware in any particular case that there is a concern, certainly my office is available to transmit any messages to the appropriate prosecutors.
But, as I might indicate, it would be entirely inappropriate for me as the minister to specifically direct any particular prosecution. I know that the member was not suggesting that I do so, but I do take his comments to heart, and he can be assured, as can members of the public there as well, that their concerns will be taken very seriously not only by my department but by the police department, the RCMP, whom I have a great deal of respect for.
RCMP Investigation
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker. This is the second time this week I have had to rise in this House in regard to public allegations about shortcomings or irregularities in RCMP investigations into the killings of aboriginal women. Today it has come to our attention through the media of allegations of a, quote, mess in the investigation into the killing of Dorothy Martin, matters regarding the withholding of evidence, missing evidence, witnesses not found, for example, a recording that was not done, and other allegations I understand of a lack of fingerprinting of the sawed-off shotgun that was the tragic instrument.
My question to the minister, following on the questions from the member for The Pas: when did the minister or his department become aware of allegations of shortcomings or irregularities in the RCMP investigation into the killing of Dorothy Martin, and why is a meeting not being held until next week? The trial is over.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, this is a particular member who takes somewhat delight in trying to pillory RCMP officers, in attempting to pillory Crown attorneys, and indeed--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister is clearly violating the provisions of Beauchesne that indicate that members should not attribute motives.
The member for St. Johns, our Justice critic, has asked some very serious questions about a very serious case that is of great concern to the family, to the community and to many Manitobans. I would appreciate it, Madam Speaker, if you would call the minister to order and ask him to respond with the same kind of seriousness to a very serious series of questions on this matter.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, in respect of this particular member, I know that the Crown Attorneys Association has had to consistently release press releases asking the member to be fair to the Crown attorneys. Just on Tuesday--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister, with the greatest respect, is not speaking to the point of order. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable Minister of Justice that his answer should be as brief as possible and deal with the question raised.
Mr. Toews: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am aware that at any particular situation in this case the Crown attorneys responded in a very quick and efficient way to any particular concerns. I think this was indicated by the families specifically recognizing not only the Crown attorneys in The Pas as having done a very good job, but indeed the chief and council in respect of the other case, thanked the specific Crown attorney for doing a very good job, so instead of just criticizing the Crown attorneys, perhaps he should just take to heart some of the words that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) raised the other day about unfairly criticizing not only the Crown attorneys but the police.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question. [interjection] Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns was recognized for a supplementary question.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would this minister, instead of defaming a messenger, listen to the voices of aboriginal women in Manitoba, aboriginal peoples in Manitoba, and would he tell this House: when did he become aware of irregularities in the police investigation, and why are he and his department not meeting with the RCMP until next week? The trial is over; the sentence has been handed down, and by the way, the Crown attorney did a good job; I am looking at this minister, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Toews: Yes, while I appreciate that the member finally recognizes that the Crown attorneys in this province are doing a good job, in respect to the allegation that I am not sensitive to the concerns of women and specifically aboriginal women, I recall very specifically, when I was a Crown attorney under the NDP government, what they used to do to women who complained in abuse cases, and what they did was throw them in jail. That was their approach. I know that my predecessors, the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) and the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) are very sensitive to the concerns of women.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.