Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Judge Pullan, when he sentenced Dennis Williams to Headingley Jail for three months, stated, and I quote, that depriving you of your free time may well have some detrimental and deterrent effect on you.

Mr. Williams did not serve any time in jail, contrary to the wishes of the judge that a deterrent be put in place.

I would like to ask the Premier, is it not the responsibility of his Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) that Judge Pullan would know that no deterrent was available for Mr. Williams because of decisions made in the Department of Justice? Is it not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to ensure that judges know that sentences they are giving for deterrence will be followed?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that Judge Pullan is a she, not a he.

I will say that is a matter that has been discussed. In fact, that very quote was quoted yesterday in the preamble to a similar question asked by members opposite. It has already been indicated that the Minister of Justice has undertaken to investigate just exactly what information was provided and what discussions were held among senior officials of her department and judges.

But, clearly, the matter was quite well known. It seems as though defence lawyers were well aware of it, that many people throughout the court system were well aware of it, so I will just leave it at that. We have responded to this issue yesterday in a greater detail, I am sure.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is the Minister of Justice who is responsible and has the duty for the administration of the justice system. The buck stops with the Minister of Justice's desk in terms of ensuring that justice is implemented in the province of Manitoba. You have one division in the Minister of Justice's department implementing decisions on behalf of the Minister of Justice, you have no knowledge in the courts, and you have no knowledge that the Crown attorneys had.

I would like to ask the Premier, what does it take for a minister to be responsible in this Chamber for their responsibilities? Judges are now saying that if they knew that the Minister of Justice had made a different decision on intermittent sentences, they would have given different sentences to ensure the deterrence of jail time was in place. I would like to ask the Premier, how can he keep a Minister of Justice in place in her portfolio when she has clearly failed in her responsibilities and duties to ensure that the courts and the Crown attorneys were aware of decisions that she had made to deal with the no-jail time for intermittent sentences, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is clear that from even the information provided by the member opposite and media, many people throughout the judicial system were aware of it. The question as to who was made aware and who was responsible to make people aware and how that took place is being investigated.

Mr. Doer: Judge Oliphant has said that he and the judges were not aware. The Crown attorneys have stated that they did not know that jail time would not be served on intermittent sentences. They have said that they would give different sentences, obviously not intermittent sentences, if they had that knowledge. It is the responsibility and duty of the Minister of Justice to ensure that this emergency decision was implemented fully throughout the justice system.

What does it take this Premier to do to hold the minister accountable in this Chamber? I mean, ministers in Ottawa have resigned for letters to the immigration board. This Minister of Justice fails to inform judges, fails to inform Crown attorneys, I believe goes contrary to the Criminal Code which requires 14 days imprisonment under Section 255, mandatory imprisonment for sentences on drunk driving, a second offence. What does it take this government to hold a minister accountable in terms of the administration of justice here in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: The matters that are referred to by the Leader of the Opposition have been responded to on numerous occasions over the past 48 hours.

* (1340)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. The Criminal Code in the section referenced by the Leader of the Opposition requires that anyone who is convicted of drive-impaired be sentenced on the second offence to imprisonment for not less than 14 days, and yet we have Mr. Cory Sigurdson on September 17 being sentenced by Judge Minuk indeed to 14 days. The judge had no choice.

My question for the minister is, does she not recognize that the Minister of Justice had no choice? What other provinces are not upholding the Criminal Code, in fact, what other provinces are breaking the Criminal Code?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, just first of all in a general sense, I did inform the House on May 28 of what was being done in terms of those people serving intermittent sentences. This was not new.

Madam Speaker, I made it clear yesterday that a formal notification should have been given to the judiciary, should have been given to the Crown. I have asked for a report from my department as to why this did not occur. If it did not occur, I want to know why.

I can tell the members now and the people of Manitoba, we do have a new acting assistant deputy minister of Corrections. We do have a relatively new ADM of Prosecutions. There is now a committee in which those three areas of Corrections, Courts and Prosecutions will on a weekly basis meet to exchange information so that there is not any further difficulty in this area. As the member knows, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions taken across the Department of Justice regularly, and we will make sure that they are communicated.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the First Minister, which was not answered by either him or the Minister of Justice, is why, in the face of the requirement in the Criminal Code for imprisonment of not less than 14 days for a second drive-impaired and the judge's decision, what legal opinion, in her mind, in the Minister of Justice's mind, enabled her to commute that sentence, to interfere with the independence of the judiciary because--

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

Mrs. Vodrey: As I answered yesterday and did call into question the knowledge of the member for St. Johns and his legal training, is that Corrections does administer the sentencing. There is an emergency provision as well.

We had a riot. We have had to rely on that emergency provision in relation to intermittent sentences. That is the answer I gave yesterday, and I believe it remains the answer today.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell this House, tell Manitobans what legal opinion she has which gave her licence to break what is the long-standing decision, principle, handed down by three centuries of legal and constitutional history, that the Crown cannot suspend laws or the execution of laws without the consent of Parliament? What legal opinion does she have--

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

Mrs. Vodrey: Well, to recap the answers I have given over the past two days, we do not like what has happened. It is absolutely not our choice to have people sentenced intermittently to not serve that jail time. It is our desire to have them serve that jail time. We do not like it either.

However, there was a riot at Headingley, clearly known. We have relied on emergency provisions to deal with these intermittent individuals. They are reporting to our Community Release Centres. They are in fact doing some work for the community which in fact, in the past, members opposite had felt was important.

Corrections has, to my knowledge and to the knowledge of most, always been in charge of the administration of the sentence, and that is what has happened now. But do we like it? No, we do not like what has happened.

* (1345)

Mr. Mackintosh: A new question, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A new question.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister not understand that not only was her refusal to tell the Crowns, to tell the judiciary that intermittent sentences would not be executed by this government--does she not understand that the decision itself was not only wrong but illegal, that she has broken the law of this land? She has broken the provisions of the Criminal Code, Madam Speaker. She has interfered with the independence of the judiciary. Does she not understand that?

Mrs. Vodrey: I totally reject the term, "refusal to tell." That is absolutely not the case. If I was refusing, I would not have come into the House and made a public statement about exactly how intermittent sentences were being handled.

I have explained the situation to the member. I have explained that our side, our government, and I as minister especially am not happy with what has occurred. But we were faced with a riot, and we had to make the accommodations that we did.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister simply explain to Manitobans what legal authority she thinks she has, to take action in the face of words in the Criminal Code which say that on a second offence for impaired driving one must be imprisoned for not less than 14 days, which Mr. Sigurdson was, and yet she ensured that that law was broken, that he would not be imprisoned for 14 days?

Mrs. Vodrey: We certainly take any issues relating to drinking and driving offences very seriously. In fact, we know our government has led the way in that area, and there will be further announcements coming forward in the very near future about how we will be dealing with that.

Madam Speaker, in summary, I will just repeat again: This is not a situation which we like; in fact, we do not like it at all, but we had very unfortunate circumstances, and decisions were made. I am informed according to the emergency provisions; I have asked my department why, in fact, there was not a better communication between the divisions within the Department of Justice. I have explained now to the people of Manitoba that there is a committee, there are new people in leadership in those divisions. There is now a committee for the sharing of that information. But nothing can take away the fact that this was spoken about publicly and it also was a widely known issue.

Mr. Mackintosh: Trying to get through here to this minister--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would she try and explain to Manitobans how it is that she thinks she has the authority as a member of the Crown, if you will, the executive, to subvert not only the judiciary but the Criminal Code of Canada?

Mrs. Vodrey: Again, if the issue is communications, I communicated in Estimates, my staff was here in Estimates, my staff was following Estimates, the information was available, the ADM of Prosecutions was also following Estimates, so the issue of communications is one in which I have made it clear--it should not have happened.

I have answered the member's questions now over and over.

* (1350)

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier.

I have asked the Premier on a previous question, and we have asked the Minister of Justice--Section 255 of the Criminal Code requires an imprisonment of 14 days--is the Premier today satisfied with the answers of his Minister of Justice, or does he not feel as we do, that the decisions of his Justice department undermine the justice system in this province and all the attempts of the federal government, the provincial government to deal with drunk driving with strong jail sentences that are implemented here in the province of Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has indicated the emergency provisions under which her department took action. The question has been asked on numerous occasions; I cannot do anything more to explain it to the member opposite.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we have heard from provincial judges who have stated that they were not in knowledge of the government's action and decisions or the so-called emergency that is alleged by the Minister of Justice.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Do you not think it is the responsibility and duty of the Minister of Justice to inform the Manitoba judges of the government's so-called emergency and failure to do so is a failure to administer the justice system of this province and failure to administer the justice system of this province should mean a resignation, rather than statements saying, I am not happy about what happened?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The member has made allegations during the course of Question Period that judges would have decided differently. If the member has the name of a judge who has come forward and said they would have decided differently, I believe that he should make it public.

Madam Speaker, the member has consistently said that he has individuals who have come forward and said that. The information that we have received is that there was one comment made in which the judiciary expressed some concerns around the formal communication. However, if there is any indication the member has that judges would have decided differently around the administration of justice, which the member has alleged in this House, I believe he should make it public. Who is it; when?

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier: One decision and action not communicated by the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Justice department, who allegedly declared an emergency, to not have persons serving any jail time for intermittent sentences, contradicts judges who want to sentence people to jail for drunk driving offences and other sentences as a deterrent. If a judge wants jail time for a deterrent for an individual charged and convicted, does not this Minister of Justice, by her negligence, incompetence, undermine the whole issue of deterrence and therefore undermine the whole justice system and therefore should be removed, Madam Speaker?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we see how ridiculous the members opposite are when the Leader of the Opposition talks about alleged emergencies. We lost an entire correctional institution that is the largest one in our province, and this is an alleged emergency to the Leader of the Opposition. How desperate, how stupid can he be to suggest that everybody else in Manitoba did not have any idea that there were certain circumstances prevailing with the shutdown of our largest penal institution and that certain provisions and certainly unexpected circumstances and decisions that nobody would have chosen to take had to be taken? You know, that is the responsibility of being in office, is to take action in emergency circumstances, and a whole lot of things were done as a result of the emergency, not the alleged emergency, that occurred as a result of the riot at Headingley. It is absolutely ridiculous for the member opposite to be trying to make political hay out of this.

* (1355)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals filed through Freedom of Information to get some valuable information, and that was, what were the gross amounts paid to each of the private laboratories and X-ray clinics in the province of Manitoba? They were rejected from within the department. Then they appealed it to the provincial Ombudsman's office, and the provincial Ombudsman's office agreed that that information should be released. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, this department has again said no. Now the association is taking the department to court.

I am wondering why the Minister of Health would not allow information of this nature to be known.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): There is a process under The Freedom of Information Act that routinely is followed when people seek information. Madam Speaker, with respect to the position taken by the department after the Ombudsman's recommendation was made known, it is something I will look into further and advise the honourable member.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I will table a letter that was sent to me, or cc'd to me, and I am sure the minister will in fact be interested in receiving the copy. In it, it does state that there is going to be a hearing date--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the honourable member please pose his question now.

Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister is: Does this government not realize that it is sending the wrong message when it is saying to individuals or organizations that want information that they are going to have to go to court in order to try to attempt to get that information, and that this particular minister today will make the commitment giving the information that has been requested to the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it is our wish, as we address all of our health needs in our province and address how to change them in order to make them sustainable for now and for future generations, to be as open as we can possibly be. If there are some proprietary or other reasons that give rise to this, then that would be the response, but, as I have said, I would check into this further for the honourable member.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the minister then report back to the House within the next week with respect to the reasons why it was rejected when we as a caucus requested the information in terms of the costs of the super regional health boards in rural Manitoba?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, I have made those commitments, and it would be my intention to honour those commitments, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, six months ago, approximately, was the riot at Headingley Institution. At that time the minister said that there was some change with the policy with respect to intermittent sentences, but the minister said, no comment and no change about TAs. The minister had no information to offer this House or the public with respect to TAs that are now the subject of so much controversy.

Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice is, how does the minister explain that there is no room for these people who are convicted of offences and to be sent to jail when we know at Stony Mountain there are 34 positions, and Annex A at Headingley, there are 50 to 60 positions, in the gym there are places, at Bannock Point there are 40 positions and Saskatchewan recently returned 30 inmates who Manitoba could have kept in Saskatchewan and had room here to put those people who were sentenced? How does the minister now have that excuse and say there is no room?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, yesterday I believe the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) also indicated Annex A was open. Well, he is wrong. The members across the way seem to get their information from inmates, where I notice a number of people have received their information. Inmates phone them.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.

* (1400)

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The information from Corrections officials, not the inmate group the members opposite talk to, is Annex A is not fully restored. It is not fully restored in the matter of security and the control posts. Annex A is not available for the housing of intermittent inmates.

Correctional officials have been in touch again with Stony Mountain. Stony Mountain has indicated to us that they are reluctant to take additional provincial inmates because of some concerns of their own within their own institution. Furthermore, the Correctional Services of Canada have asked us to consider repatriating five of our offenders who are currently housed in Stony Mountain. We have also been in contact with Saskatchewan, and they have indicated the same concerns. They are concerned about the stability of their own correctional institution. So, at the moment, the members are trying to present what they consider to be an easy option. Where they got their information, I do not know.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Justice--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, maybe the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will answer the question--

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

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, we are very sorry that people of Manitoba have to be put through this kind of fiasco in having people who should be in jail, on the street. That is what this side is very sorry about and all Manitobans.

My question to the Minister of Justice is, is the minister saying today that there is no room at the gym at Headingley for the utilization, at Bannock Point, with 40 positions, or that Saskatchewan would not repatriate or take prisoners in order to ensure that prisoners who are sentenced to jail have to spend their time in jail? [interjection] Again, if the Premier wants to answer the question, perhaps he can get up and answer the question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Kildonan quickly complete his question.

Mr. Chomiak: Will the minister indicate in this House that there is absolutely no room at Bannock, no room at the gym at Headingley and no possibility of repatriation or movement of prisoners between Saskatchewan and Manitoba to ensure people who are sentenced to time in jail spend their time in jail?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, people who are sentenced to time in jail, we want to see serve their time in jail, too. That is why our government has put forward $10 million for the reconstruction of Headingley, to meet the safety and security needs, the public safety and security needs to ensure that high-risk inmates are housed separately, that intermittent inmates are housed separately.

Madam Speaker, I explained yesterday that there is also a workplace safety and health issue. This issue has been brought forward to the workplace safety and health committees who have expressed their concerns around intermittent inmates mixing with the general population. In terms of opening Bannock Point, I can tell you that Corrections informs me all available manpower is currently now working within our major facilities.

Now that is the information I received. Members across the way seem to have something else they would like to add, so I will wait until I hear what they have to say.

Mr. Chomiak: So the minister is saying that if available manpower was there, they would have the possibility of housing those prisoners, but because the government has cut back on manpower these prisoners are walking the street. Is that therefore a government policy? You do not have sufficient person power--

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

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the minister therefore saying that the reason they have not opened those facilities or utilized those facilities is because of what she said in her previous response, they do not have sufficient manpower? Why is the province not willing to provide protection for Manitobans by providing appropriate manpower?

Mrs. Vodrey: The member across the way jumps to incredible conclusions, unbelievable conclusions. However, Madam Speaker, that is not what I said, and the members, I believe, should know that there are correctional officers who are undergoing training at the moment, but we do have--and this seems to have escaped you--some correctional officers who are currently not working as a result of the riot at Headingley, as a result of the fact that they are traumatized and they are dealing with their issues.

Madam Speaker, in dealing with that, there are correctional officers who are currently being trained. But members across the way, in all matters, whether or not there is a physical building to house inmates, whether or not we have trained correctional officers available or additional people available, they have continually overlooked and overlooked and overlooked those matters. This issue is a very difficult one to manage, and we are working as quickly as we can to deal with it.

We do not like the fact that intermittent offenders are not spending their weekends in jail. The fact is, they are out five days a week.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yesterday I read into the record the long record of one Mr. Dennis Raymond Williams. I will not do the same with Mr. Sean Craig Malfill [phonetic] who had a very significant record as was outlined in the trial transcript, but I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, who appears not to understand the concerns of people of Manitoba about what she has been doing the last six months, how she can justify what has happened where this individual did not receive the jail time that he was sentenced to when the judge specifically prescribed that this was appropriate, jail was appropriate in this particular case, and when in fact the judge went on to say that many people refer to certain laws as being scoff laws.

Does she not recognize that right now the people of Manitoba are asking the question, if it is not the Minister of Justice who is scoffing at the laws of this province when for the last six months these kinds of individuals have not been receiving the jail time they were sentenced to?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We certainly do not want to have our laws scoffed at or have scoff laws, which is why in fact we on our side have made every effort to toughen up regulations or to bring forward provincial laws where we believe there has been a gap in the federal system. We actually have one of those currently on the Order Paper now.

But the answer remains the same, and I have given the answer several times today. Sentencing does rest with the judges, but the administration of that sentence rests with Corrections. That is the historic fact. That is the fact now, and Corrections is charged with the administration of those sentences. They are administering them in the way that I have explained, not the way we like, not the way we want, but the way in this emergency situation that we are forced to deal with the matter.

Mr. Ashton: I would like to table a copy of the Criminal Code, which is very applicable to the Cory Sigurdson case. I would like to ask the minister just to acknowledge that it is the role--her role--of Corrections to enforce sentences, how she can justify not putting the resources in place since May to ensure that these individuals who require under law to spend 14 days at minimum in imprisonment, why she could not run her Department of Justice in a way to ensure that they did that on weekends.

Is she saying that her government is unable to run the justice system--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Vodrey: It is very clear that our government has made a commitment--never made by the other side, ever made by the other side regardless of how many reports have been brought forward to deal with our institutional issues. It was this government that built the Remand Centre. It is this government that has put $10 million forward to deal with the Headingley issues. So the resources, financial and personal, are there, have been put forward by this side, never by that side.

The issue of whether or not certain individual cases which have been brought forward by members opposite have been dealt with in the way the member would like, well, we would like it, too. I have made it clear; we would like it, too. When it is possible--and we are moving as quickly as we can--that is exactly what will happen.

Madam Speaker, at the moment we are having to rely on emergency provisions, but I have made it clear. We have some of our correctional officers who are currently unable to work due to what happened at the riot. There are correctional officers in training to deal with that issue, and on the capital side, on the building side, we are also dealing with that. The answers remain the same to every question that has been asked.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final supplementary, Madam Speaker: When will this minister, and when will the Premier, where the buck ultimately stops on this matter, recognize that the concerns of the people of Manitoba are that since May this government has made a choice by not allocating the appropriate resources, not to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada in certain convictions and other sentences? When will he, the Premier, understand that he has to remove this Minister of Justice and ensure that jail sentences that are issued by the courts are enforced in this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have responded to that same question on numerous occasions both yesterday and today.

* (1410)

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, from May onwards the Minister of Justice knew and has told this House she knew that the accommodation of sentenced prisoners who were sentenced for intermittent sentences and for TAs as well was a problem, but her deputy, Mr. Fineblit, did not seem to know. Corrections officials seemed to know, but Crown attorneys did not seem to know. Judges did not seem to know, but cons and their lawyers did seem to know. Nothing has changed.

If it has been going on for five or six months, how can the Minister of Justice explain such incompetent ability to communicate?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issue of communication, as I said, most certainly should have occurred in a formal sense. It should have occurred in a formal sense, and I want to know from my department why it did not occur in a formal sense. But, Madam Speaker--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.

Mrs. Vodrey: So we certainly believe in the formal sense that it should have. We are having some difficulty finding out if in fact it really did not occur. I have asked for that report. However, through public statements, through public comment, it was clear and known to most Manitobans the issue at Headingley, and my staff was also with me during the time of Estimates.

I have explained that there has been a change at the assistant deputy minister level in Corrections, and so it is somewhat difficult to find out the details as to exactly what communication occurred. However, I want to assure the people of Manitoba that there is a system in place now, a formal system for that reporting.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House why it is appropriate for her to blame officials, including ones that were just appointed within six weeks or seven weeks of now? Why will she continue to blame her officials, blame her department, blame anybody but not take the responsibility herself and resign?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the issue of blaming is in the minds of the NDP. What I have asked for is to find out what has been communicated, was there anything in a formal sense, in an informal sense. I have made it clear what has been said. There is no question, we expect that it should have been communicated. If it was not, it is now formally done.

I have listened all afternoon to the hypocrisy of the other side. I have listened all afternoon to the hypocrisy of a party who did not support the community notification process. I have listened to the hypocrisy of the other side who did not support strengthened Young Offenders, and you are on the record for your lack of support for public safety.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."

Madam Speaker, if the minister wishes to debate the justice system and her conduct, we offered that opportunity yesterday with a matter of urgent public importance. But she should not take up the time of Question Period to do anything other than what the people of Manitoba want, which is for her to accept responsibility for her actions involving the justice system in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would remind the honourable minister that she should pick and choose her words carefully so as not to provoke debate.

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the Premier tell the House why a federal minister ought to resign over writing a letter on behalf of a dying constituent, but a provincial Minister of Justice ought not to resign over subverting the Criminal Code and her whole judiciary?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the allegation made by the member opposite is not only outrageous, it is absolutely unfactual, and I reject it completely.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.