Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I rise today to address a very serious issue that is facing Manitobans once again, and that is another serious shortcoming that has been shown in the Department of Justice in Manitoba, in fact, an issue that has now been receiving national attention, I think an embarrassment to Manitobans. More particularly though, I think an issue of life and death that should concern every one of us, and that is the issue of the Chief Medical Examiner's office of Manitoba and the apparent shortcomings and the questions that Manitobans are raising about the efficacy of that office.
Yesterday, we understand that the Chief Medical Examiner made--
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, this member is in fact transgressing the rules. He knows that this matter is a matter of a public inquiry before the courts, and he is breaching the rules. He knows that this is a wrong thing to do, that there is a judge considering this matter, and he continually attempts to subvert the administration of justice by comments that might interfere with the performance of that judge's duties.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, I would point out that it is not acceptable on a supposed point of order for this minister to attribute motives, in this case subverting justice. Also, the Minister of Justice should do some research in terms of our sub judice convention. This is a civil matter. It is not subject to the restrictions on sub judice. It is not only appropriate for this member to raise this question, I think it is absolutely in the public interest to have this raised in members' statements in the Legislature on the public record.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Justice, Beauchesne Citation 507(1) states: "no settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others" but traditionally has been applied consistently, according to Beauchesne 506, in criminal cases.
Therefore, the honourable minister does not have a point of order.
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the members of this House on this side--and I am glad you were supporting this position--will not subvert justice, as the minister alleges this side is doing, by trying to hide from the public serious matters of public interest. There is nothing more serious than life and death. The office of the Chief Medical Examiner is established in order to prevent the kinds of deaths that Manitobans have suffered at the Health Sciences Centre.
It was back in May of 1994 that this side of the House raised serious questions about the office of Chief Medical Examiner. At that time we asked the government to please appoint an outside agency or an outside review to ensure that that office was indeed fulfilling its designated function. Again in June of 1995, we brought to this House the issue of the baby deaths at Health Sciences Centre. We asked at that time why it is, despite references in the annual report, that every child death would be reviewed, only one of the 12 deaths at the Health Sciences Centre was reviewed. We did not get an answer on that question.
Finally, the government got a report by the Premier's campaign manager. We are now asking for the release of that report, so Manitobans will know what at least that report found out about the workings of the office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, a member's statement?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yes, Madam Speaker. I rise today on a member's statement in respect of a matter that is of grave concern to me and to members of the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys. The Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys have released statements regarding a number of cases which they felt were very important to bring to the attention of the public. They have stated specifically that opposition members of the Legislature have--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Madam Speaker. This is members' statements. The purpose of members' statements is to give private members the opportunity to make statements on matters of concern to their constituents. In terms of ministers, it is not time when ministers should be making statements regarding their portfolios. The appropriate time to do that is ministerial statements.
I would suggest that, once again, the Minister of Justice is out of order.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I am raising an important matter that is of grave concern to all my constituents, indeed all of Manitobans. This is not simply a matter of the administration of justice. This is a matter of the opposition member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). Now the members opposite are wanting to hide what I have to say, and they stand up and they object to what I am being--now I am standing on a point of order to ensure that members of the public understand that the member for St. Johns has made very scurrilous accusations and that needs to be placed on record.
* (1430)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed--[interjection] On the same point of order? May I please have clarification from the honourable member for St. Johns if he was on his feet on the same point of order?
Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order following on comments made by the Minister of Justice.
Madam Speaker: Not the same point of order that I am about to rule on. [interjection] Okay.
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), according to our rules, members' statements 20.(2)--and I was listening very carefully. I think had I heard a little bit more, I would have been able to have made this decision without an interjection by the member for Thompson, but sometimes it is very difficult to tell where a member is leading with the introductory comments. "A Minister of the Crown may not use the time allotted for Members' Statements to comment on government policy or ministerial or departmental action."
Therefore, the honourable member for Thompson did have a point of order, and the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) will not be allowed to complete his member's statement.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on a new point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A new point of order, Madam Speaker. In the comments that the minister made on the point of order that you ruled on just previously, the minister used the word "scurrilous." Under Beauchesne Citation 489, "scurrilous" has been clearly ruled as unparliamentary.
I would like, once again, Madam Speaker, for you to call the minister to order; in this case, withdraw that unparliamentary word.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. I remember the word complained of today at one time being used by former Premier Pawley in relation to something I had said, which reminds me of Beauchesne Citation 491, which reminds us that we ought to take words in the context in which they are used before deciding whether they are parliamentary or unparliamentary.
The citation says: The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary. So, Madam Speaker, Citation 491 is the kicker, as it were, in the whole book, because it renders both lists in other citations somewhat useless, depending upon the context in which the words are used.
So I suggest that in an effort, perhaps, to bring some moderation to the discussion this afternoon, you might like to consider the honourable member for Thompson's point of order and my response to it and maybe rule on the matter at another time, depending on how you feel about it. But in any event, once we get that behind us, we might get on with a little more order in the Chamber this afternoon. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that indeed any word used in the Chamber, generally the Speaker's guideline for determining whether it is unparliamentary or not, is if it causes disruption, and the word "scurrilous"--I cannot even say it now--has appeared on the list of unparliamentary language as precedent previously. It has also been drawn to my attention that the former Speaker Walding ruled this word, when directly referring to a specific member, as unparliamentary.
I would therefore request the honourable Minister of Justice to withdraw the word.
Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, if in fact Speaker Walding ruled that way, I will in fact withdraw that word. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Justice.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): It certainly has been an interesting part of members' statements so far.
I rise in the Chamber today to congratulate the decision taken by one of Canada's most infamous and well-known characters. Unfortunately this character is not well known for his hard work and dedicated public service; rather we knew him as Canada's most truant senator. I am speaking of Senator Andrew Thompson who has recently announced his resignation. Unfortunately, Mr. Thompson reached the decision only after massive public outcry, banishment from his caucus and after an unprecedented move by the Senate to suspend him.
Since 1990, Mr. Thompson has attended only 12 sittings of Senate. In the last 15 years he has attended less than 5 percent of Senate sittings. While this record is appalling, it is by no means unique. Regularly, about one-quarter of senators miss 40 percent or more of the sittings. Obviously there is a systematic problem in the Canadian Senate and one that cannot be addressed by tinkering or at the margins.
The Senate should be reformed to be effective, equal and, most importantly, elected. While the Senate has taken some small steps to reform its practices, these small steps do not go far enough. If senators cannot police themselves to ensure that they perform their most basic duties, then they are unworthy of our trust and confidence. Canadians have lost respect for the institution of the Senate, and if it cannot be reformed, perhaps Canadians would be better off if there were no Senate at all.
On behalf of the members of the Legislative Assembly, I congratulate former Senator Thompson on his long-delayed decision. Now we can only hope that during his ongoing respite in Mexico, the senator will take a moment to think about the $48,000 pension that Canadian taxpayers will provide.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I think we have seen why we have so many problems with education in this province. We saw it earlier in Question Period where repeatedly the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) refused to take action for special needs children. This, the Minister of Education, who has no trouble sending out letters on whatever her fancy may come up with, whether it be Chris Millar, a student protester, or God Save the Queen, this is the same minister who will not intervene to make sure that we have proper funding for special needs students.
What I would like to suggest to the minister when she goes back to her office and opens up her computer and sits down to write a letter, I have a suggestion for a number of potential letters. The first one, Madam Speaker, should be to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and it should be to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and it should direct those ministers to stop the underfunding of public education in our province. That is the first letter.
The second letter is to deal with the special needs students. She can send that to the First Minister as well. I have a suggestion for a few other letters as well. I know many of us in northern Manitoba would like to see a letter calling for the establishment of a northern university, something that has been talked about for many years.
Finally, if the minister really wants to sit down at that word processor and type up the appropriate letter, I would suggest, after her bizarre behaviour as Minister of Education and her neglect to public education, it be her letter of resignation.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I would like to congratulate the members of the Morden Collegiate Vox Choir. They recently achieved a gold medal at the Winnipeg Music Festival in early March. This accomplishment also entitled them to compete for the Earl Grey Trophy which they just won on March 18. In May of this year these talented singers will travel to Vancouver to compete in MusicFest Canada. These young ladies all attend Morden Collegiate and are a very close group.
Their choral director, Miss Catherine Robbins, noted that their close relationship adds to their performances. I, along with my community, am very proud of these young singers. They have represented Morden with a great deal of class, and I know that they will continue to do so as they head on to Vancouver in May.
Madam Speaker, these students will always remember and cherish these experiences. Many members of this House and Manitobans had an opportunity to see this choir perform during the recent Christmas open house. I am sure they are well remembered.
On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to wish the Morden Collegiate Vox Choir good luck and good times as they proceed to the music fest in Vancouver. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I rise to congratulate some citizens from Citizen's Advisory Committee of Correctional Service Canada and The John Howard Society of Manitoba for sponsoring a community forum. Community Leadership in Community Corrections was the name of the forum. This was held on Saturday, March 21, at Concord College. The keynote speaker was Barbara Daté from Menno Simons College. In addition, there was a panel made up of Darlene Rempel from Victims and Citizens' Advisory Committees; Art Majkut, Regional Vice-Chairperson, National Parole Board; Rene Desrochier from the Lifeline Group and myself.
This was a wonderful one-day workshop. I think the most interesting part of the workshop was when we broke into small group sessions. A mother of a young girl who had been killed got up during her workshop and talked for 15 minutes about how she felt about the conditions that the person who killed her daughter was living under. After she talked for about 15 minutes, she said that was the first time in the entire legal justice system that she felt she had been listened to and heard. She said that is what she really wanted all the way through the justice system or the legal system.
So I commend the people who put on this conference, Andy Grier, Terri Hibbi and others, for the wonderful work they did, and I hope we see more workshops like this. Thank you.