Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Judge Heather Pullan, in sentencing Mr. Dennis Williams, who has a record as long as your arm, including three impaired drinking and driving convictions, stated that the record is so bad that a message must be sent to Mr. Williams. It must get through to him.

It seems to me that going back weekend after weekend, depriving you of your free time, may have a significant deterrent effect on you. Judge Pullan sentenced Mr. Williams to three months in weekend jail. Unfortunately, Mr. Williams did not serve any time pursuant to Judge Pullan's decision of sentencing.

I would like to ask the Premier, given that his Justice department implements the sentences of the day, does he support the decision of his Justice department to not have Mr. Williams serve any time?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The issue of intermittent sentencing has been a very difficult one. When the judiciary sentences people, who I would make it clear are in fact free five days of the week otherwise to be in the community, when these people are sentenced to weekends we do want to accommodate them.

At the moment, however, because of the riot at Headingley we have been unable to for several reasons. One of the most important, of interest to members across the way, is a workplace safety and health issue, which is being brought, I understand, today to our correctional guards at the workplace safety and health committee.

The issue is that intermittent inmates are often targets for the bringing in of contraband into our institutions. It is not yet clear, because we do not have Judge Hughes's report, what part that may have played in the riot which occurred in April. So there is a workplace safety and health concern to make sure that any intermittent inmates are separate and apart from the general population.

Now members across the way are deciding that that is not a very important answer. It is in fact an important answer in terms of the workplace safety and health issues.

* (1335)

Mr. Doer: With the greatest of respect, I think the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should start stating whether he supports the decisions of his Justice department instead of sitting down and ducking the issues.

This is a Minister of Justice who told us all through last spring that the Headingley riot had nothing to do with the TA decisions of government. So her word means nothing to the people of this province and to the members on this side of the House. That is why I will readdress this question to the Premier.

Given the fact that it was the Premier who was slamming the cell doors during the election campaign and putting bars behind his face during the campaign, does the Premier support the decisions of his Justice department to release, without serving any time, a Cory Sigurdson, a 20-year-old individual who has had two drunk-driving convictions in the last year, three times the blood level? Does the Premier support the fact that the Justice department did not have this individual serve any jail time? Does the Premier support that as the proper implementation of both the community respect for the justice system and the Premier's promise to the people in the election campaign?

Mrs. Vodrey: Of course, the intermittent sentencing of people, whatever their offences or whatever they have been accused of, is the decision of the court. But it is very interesting to me that it is now that the Leader of the Opposition raises this issue when I, on May 28, 1996, in Estimates informed the House. What I am informed to the best of our information, to the best information coming to me, is that intermittent-sentenced individuals are reporting to the Community Release Centre. They are being assigned community work assignments or work projects, and they are to the best of our knowledge completing those, working on those.

So this is not new information to members from the other side. I believe they have decided, perhaps based on a media report, to now become very concerned about it. This information was delivered to the House, is in Hansard, in May 1996.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, this minister on May 16 and all the way through May said that there had been no change in the TA policy based on the Headingley riot. Now she is fully contradicting herself, as she does every day in this Chamber.

An Honourable Member: . . . your own comments.

Mr. Doer: If the Premier wants to answer a question, why does he not have the nerve and the backbone to stand up and answer a question instead of ducking and covering and--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that defence lawyers are aware of this, cons are laughing about these decisions, judges are being undermined--as members of this community with children and families in this community, I am appalled and angry that people with these kinds of driving records are out on the streets and not serving jail time.

I would like to ask the Premier, will he fire this Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) and give us a Minister of Justice that has the capacity to tell us the truth in this Chamber and can implement and has the capacity to implement the sentences that judges are providing to convicted individuals in this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I wonder what family the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. Is it the family--

Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier is imputing motives. I am talking about all our families. We all have friends, family, children, and we all should be concerned about it. I am talking about all our families.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether it was the family that the Leader of the Opposition rented for his election brochure in 1988 that he was referring to. His sincerity lacks a little bit of resonance and truth.

The issue here is that we have to operate on the best advice given to us by the professionals who work for the Department of Justice. We do not try and play, we do not try and superimpose our values and our judgments on those of the people who are paid to give that advice and to exercise those--[interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the members opposite know everything but they do not find out until there is a media report that tells them what they are supposed to know, and then afterwards they become these big advocates, afterwards they become these big experts, afterwards they become so knowledgeable, but before the fact they know zero. When the minister told them exactly what was happening on May 28--she has just read earlier from Hansard--they had nothing to say about it until it was raised by the media. That is how knowledgeable they are, that is how expert they are, that is how informed they are, and that is why they are on the other side of the House.

* (1340)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Further to the case raised by the Leader of the Opposition, of Dennis Williams, at that sentencing hearing, the defence counsel made the submission to the judge that on a 90-day sentence he is going to be obligated to do those weekends. He will be more under the control of the government jail agency under an intermittent sentence than he would be under a straight sentence, and the judge went on to make the judgment that my Leader spoke of.

My question to the minister is, why, for goodness sake, did the Crown agree with the defence to the sentence? Why did the Crown not inform the court, and, indeed, why did the minister not inform this Legislature that the sentence given was a no-go?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there has been public discussion about the difficulty accommodating intermittent sentences. However, I am very concerned to learn that some members of the justice system have indicated that they were not aware. I have made sure today that there has been another statement issued from Corrections to all partners in the justice system of the difficulty accommodating intermittent sentences.

But, Madam Speaker, again, I will make it clear. This is not a choice or a path that we would have chosen. It is not the intention of this government to have intermittent sentences not in jail. We want them there. But the realities of the riot are such that there was another accommodation which had to be made affecting those people serving intermittent sentences, those people who--though the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has expressed great distress that they are out on weekends--these are the same people who are out five days a week working in the community, working in other areas. These are people that the court has sentenced intermittently. It is not our choice, but it is at the moment the position we are in.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: My question to the minister is, why did this minister thwart the deterrent given by the court, given by the courts on many occasions, you understand, dealing with intermittent sentences? Why did she exhibit this contempt of the court? Why has she covered up her incompetence by hiding from the court the options that were available to the judges?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, well, there was certainly, in no case, any contempt involved in this matter or any other. It is a well-known fact. I believe, if you asked many people across Canada, it would be very clear to them that Headingley Institution is not running at full capacity. It was very clear when almost three weeks ago I made the announcement on behalf of government that explained how Headingley would be redeveloped and that in that redevelopment plan, intermittent sentences would be housed separate and apart from the general population. It is amazing to me that the other side, who have spoken so frequently about their concerns around labour relations, they had no idea that this was a concern for our correctional officers, bringing intermittent inmates into the general population. It is amazing how that slipped their minds.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who has a new-found concern today about intermittent sentences, explain why she has not told her Crown attorneys to tell the judges that the sentencing option of intermittent sentences was not a go, that she was thwarting justice, that she was in contempt of the administration of justice in this province, Madam Speaker?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I will say again that there has been no contempt. There has in fact been a consequence to the people serving intermittent sentences. That consequence is one in which they report to our Community Release Centres. Through our Community Release Centres, with supervision, they provide a public service for agencies such as the Salvation Army. If they fail to report to the Community Release Centre, in the same way as if they failed to report to serve their jail time, there is a warrant issued for their arrest. So there is not any effort in any way to provide contempt.

I will just say again that if there was anyone within the justice system unfamiliar or did not know the current situation, that has certainly been remedied again today by Corrections, who have made it very clear this is the situation we are dealing with. It is known to correctional officers; it is known across the system.

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

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the minister, by her instruction today to her department, admits to her incompetence and admits that she should have done this a long time ago. She has had five and a half months since the Headingley riot to get her act together.

I ask this minister, since when does she decide the consequences for a criminal act, rather than the courts of the land?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, first of all, it always falls to Corrections. It is a long-standing practice in Corrections that they administer the sentence.

Now the member has some legal training. That is well known within the justice system; that is a practice that has been in place for many years. This is not a practice, that Corrections administers the sentence, new as a result of the Headingley riot. So the member continues to show how little he knows. However, I accept the fact that he attempts to ask questions that the public wants to have the understanding of, and so I am happy to explain that Corrections does administer the sentence to the best of their ability. The court provides the sentence; Corrections administers it.

There is an emergency provision within the act which allows for the issuing of temporary absences and accommodation other than a jail sentence in our Corrections Act. But, Madam Speaker, this has been an emergency situation; that is not new to anyone. We did not have the space in Headingley Institution. We are looking to have Headingley up and running as quickly as possible and to settle the labour matters, the health and welfare matters as well.

* (1345)

Mr. Mackintosh: The minister now makes another argument about the lack of space. I ask the minister to explain to this House how she can say that she wants these intermittent-sentenced individuals in jail when she pulled the prisoners from the Saskatchewan jails last month--I understand, 31. I understand there are spaces in Stony Mountain; I understand there is Bannock Point sitting empty; I understand that there are facilities at Headingley, including the gym and Annex A. Why is she making that? There is no motivation on this part except they do not care about justice, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Vodrey: Again, we hear from the other side who for several days in this session has attempted to make a point about their interest in labour relations and safe working conditions.

The member across the way knows very well that, as we move back into the population at Headingley, we are working with workplace safety and health committees. Workplace safety and health committees are identifying issues which correctional guards are concerned about, and we have to move step by step in order to have the repopulation of Headingley done in a safe way.

Now, I began my answers earlier today by making it clear that there does appear to be a concern around the role of intermittent sentencing and the bringing in of contraband into the general population. That issue has to be settled, and there has to be an acceptance by our correctional officers, by the workplace safety and health committees that they are satisfied when intermittent individuals are returned to the institution that they will be kept separate and apart or that we can guard against any bringing in of contraband. That issue is an important one to the workplace safety and health issues.

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

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Our government's concern is in fact for victims and is in fact to make sure that people do receive a consequence when they are offenders and that Headingley Institution will be better able to deal with those offenders, whether they are high-risk offenders, where they are intermittent offenders, whether they are offenders who require some special protection.

Madam Speaker, we have had some changes in Corrections over the past while. I have spoken to the new ADM of Corrections. I have asked him to, very specifically in writing as well as verbally, make it clear if there was ever any misunderstanding. However, I do have to say that the Headingley riot is very well known. My comments in the House indicated several months ago how intermittent sentences were being dealt with. This really is not new, but if there was any misunderstanding whatsoever, the ADM of Corrections has told me that he has spoken by phone both to the ADM of Prosecutions, to the Court of Queen's Bench judiciary and that he will be following up in writing today.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question again is to the First Minister. I asked the Premier about the case of Mr. Williams; I asked the Premier, the case of Mr. Sigurdson--both of whom were sentenced to jail time by the judge. In fact, the judge cited the need for deterrents, cited the need to take away the freedom of individuals, to provide deterrents to try to correct the unsafe driving conditions that threaten all of us.

I would like to ask the Premier, does he defend his Minister of Justice and the Justice department that he is responsible for, for allowing these people to have their sentences and not do any jail time? What does that say to the deterrents that the judges are ordering and sentencing in our criminal justice system?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think that the explanations that have been given by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) have adequately responded to the concerns that have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

* (1350)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, on May 16, in this Chamber, we asked a number of times on a number of occasions, is there any change in the temporary absence policy as a result of the Headingley riot. Of course, we were asking those questions on the basis of an alleged murder that had allegedly taken place with an individual that was released on temporary absence. The minister said, my answer is no. She went on time and time again to say that there had been no change in policy.

Today there is a different alleged policy in dealing with a different set of circumstances with individuals that have been sentenced. We have even heard the minister say that contraband in jail can be a criterion for this minister to decide not to implement the sentences of courts and judges for individuals in the Manitoba justice system. Is that the justice system the Premier was promising during the election campaign, that if somebody may have contraband, they are not going to go to jail?

I would like to ask the Premier, is that the kind of Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), the ad hoc answers we get in the Chamber, that we can expect from this government, and when can we have a Minister of Justice that will have the confidence of the public and the confidence of all partners of the justice system?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate desire to misrepresent, the Leader of the Opposition has taken the words of the Minister of Justice, which I heard earlier--and she said that the reconstruction of Headingley is going to provide for an opportunity to have these people on intermittent sentences in a separate place so they would not be mixed with the other inmates. That is what her explanation was. The member can choose either to ignore it or he can choose not to understand it, but the minister has again responded adequately to his questions.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the changing position of the Minister of Justice would appear to be hard to defend by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or anyone else in our community.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, how can he keep a Minister of Justice in place when the Minister of Justice was unable or unwilling to inform the judges of this province that the policy had allegedly changed for sentences, where the defence lawyers knew about it and were pleading out cases on the basis of the alleged government position, where the cons know about it and talk about, they would rather serve their time at home rather than serving it on weekends? How can the Premier keep this Minister of Justice in place when she does not inform the rest of the justice system? I would like to ask the Premier again to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Justice and give us a Minister of Justice that can restore the integrity of the justice system for the people of this province.

* (1355)

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, all through the time of the Headingley riot, information was being provided as quickly as possible, as thoroughly as possible. It is clear now that we did not always receive all of the information through the process. That is not new. Every day there was an attempt to provide the best information possible to members opposite, and when thorough and complete information was gained, then that also was delivered to the House.

But, Madam Speaker, I think the important issue here is this. We cannot go back and redo everything that happened in Headingley, but we do not ever want it to happen again. So this government has commissioned an independent inquiry that former Justice Ted Hughes will be doing, who will be looking at all of these matters.

I met with him on Friday. We will be looking at, right from the beginning to the end, including the issue of temporary absences, whether or not they were reasonably issued, whether or not there was anything that should not have been done that was done. That will be covered in the results of the inquiry and we on this side look forward to it.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. What has become abundantly clear is that this government has been unable to represent the producers, the small family farms out in rural Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, that was demonstrated with the hog industry in terms of the movement towards the single-desk checkoff. It is demonstrated through the Canadian Wheat Board and the lack of respect that this government has demonstrated towards it. That lack of respect for the rural farmer is clearly demonstrated by lack of actions by this government.

My question to the Minister responsible for Agriculture is, will the minister indicate what he believes with respect to the recommendations brought down from the Minister of Agriculture late last week with respect to the future of the Canadian Wheat Board?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, the race for the Liberal leadership must be heating up in rural Manitoba, but allow me to answer as directly as I can.

Certainly Minister Goodale's response on an issue where he knows there is no middle ground is in part in keeping with the position that the Manitoba government has repeatedly expressed, that the Wheat Board must change, a position that is supported by Manitoba's largest agricultural producers' organization, Keystone. He has adopted a number of measures within the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to alter its pooling practices, to consider making available the spot and cash prices for certain portions of the wheat sold and marketed within the framework of the Canadian Wheat Board and, as well, has suggested, at his timing, perhaps later on this winter, to ask the producers for a further question with respect to barley.

Madam Speaker, I have generally applauded the minister's direction on this score, although he certainly has not satisfied anybody that is actively engaged in this debate.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, actively engaged in this debate--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that a supplementary question requires no postamble, no preamble. The honourable member, to pose his question now.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture tell rural Manitobans what this government's position is dealing with the wheat and barley with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board? Get off the fence, take a position, represent Manitobans for a change, the producer.

Mr. Enns: The federal government, who has the sole responsibility with respect to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, has taken very specific action. Minister Goodale searched the countryside to find what has been described on several occasions a blue ribbon committee of experts. They spent the better part of a year in asking and examining the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. They came back with the recommendations that have been supported by this government from the day those recommendations have been made public.

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

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister will attempt to answer precisely whether or not this government recognizes the importance of the Wheat Board retaining its monopoly because it is in the best interests of the wheat farmer. Will he acknowledge that is in fact the case? Will he stand up for the majority of farmers in the province?

Mr. Enns: The panel's recommendations recognize the ongoing role of the Canadian Wheat Board and its single-selling desk authority which it recommended with respect to the largest business that it does, the marketing of our wheat, a position that we support. It also went on to make other recommendations which the minister who appointed the committee chose to ignore. We regret that.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yesterday, Mr. Dennis Raymond Williams alias Darrell Jesmer alias Dean Kay alias Ray Louison alias Douglas Asham alias Lou Louison stated, and I quote: It is all right with me. The guys, you know, do not have to do time. It is all right staying home and doing time on the weekend.

I would like to ask the Premier if he feels it is acceptable, due to his government's policy and the incompetence of his Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that this individual is not serving time in an institution when between 1977 and 1996 he has convictions for impaired driving, breach of probation, failure to appear, driving disqualified, possessing stolen goods, break and enter, resisting arrest, driving while suspended, violating parole, impaired driving, theft over $1,000, possession of goods obtained by crime--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am only up to 1980; 1981, impaired driving, break and enter, impaired driving, theft, mischief, failing to comply, theft, assault, abduction of his own kids, possession of weapons, theft--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ashton: --possession of narcotics, theft under $1,000, assault, uttering forged documents and driving suspended. Is this the policy of this government to allow individuals such as this to not be spending the time in jail that they were sentenced to by a judge in the province of Manitoba?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. First, I would like to remind the honourable member for Thompson that we have some pretty explicit guidelines with relation to posing questions, and I would ask for his co-operation in adhering to those guidelines.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question.

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

Mr. Ashton: My apologies. I did feel that it was important to read the entire record into the record of this Legislature.

I would like to ask the Premier how he can say this, how he can suggest that he answered the question when the key question Manitobans are asking is, how is this government incapable of running a justice system that requires this individual to spend weekends in an institution as part of his sentence that he received in a court? How can he not have a justice system that achieves that here in Manitoba?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, of course, the member should know that we on this side of the House are concerned. That has already been expressed by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). No, we do not like to have to make accommodations in dealing with people who have been sentenced in particular ways, but unlike the members opposite, we have to deal with reality. None of us chose to have the riot at Headingley occur. There was a major upheaval that has reduced our capacity. It has done many things obviously within the corrections system that have to be addressed. We moved quickly to call an independent inquiry to ensure that we had all the information available to us to deal with the situation. These are the realities of the situation that have to be dealt with by this government and they are being dealt with by this government.

Members opposite, they want to grandstand; members opposite, they want to deal in situations that do not deal with reality. This government is doing what has to be done to deal with an intolerable situation, and the minister has indicated the commitments that have been made with respect to $10 million to ensure that all the circumstances that will prevail in future, we will have adequate answers and resources and accommodations for. But in this time that we are going through as a result of the aftermath of the riot, we have to deal with what we have to deal with, and that is precisely what we are doing, not taking the irresponsible position of members opposite that expect us to do miracles when we do not have the ability to do that.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, it is not irresponsible to expect a convicted individual to spend time in jail for the time he was sentenced.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson was recognized for a final supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary, if the Premier will now indicate that we are not dealing only with a matter of the incompetence in the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), but perhaps, in the 1995 election campaign, when we saw the Premier closing the cell doors, he did not explain to Manitobans that he was closing the cell doors to keep people out of jail, serving the time they had been sentenced to in Manitoba, individuals such as Dennis Williams, who should be serving his time behind bars on the weekends as was his sentence.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that members opposite should be cheering for the fact that we had a riot at a major institution in this province, that it causes a disruption that nobody could anticipate, that nobody could deal with on the spur of the moment. We do not have a second jail waiting to move everybody into. We have realities to deal with. The irresponsible attitude of the members opposite, cheering on this situation, is the ugliest situation that we ever have to deal with in this House.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I asked the Premier to explain to Manitobans his election promise in terms of justice, and I would like to ask you not only to ask him to answer that question but to withdraw his comments. All we are seeking is a justice system that works in this province, something we do not have under this incompetent Minister of Justice and a Premier who did not tell the truth to the people of Manitoba in the 1995 election campaign.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson under advisement to research Hansard and report back to the House.

* (1410)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

Notwithstanding all of the rhetoric we have heard from the Premier today, how can the Premier explain a Minister of Justice who has a policy where prisoners who are supposed to serve sentences get out and do not serve their sentences, when the judges who administer those sentences do not know that, when at least two Crown attorneys who are responsible for advising the courts of that do not know that, and when, clearly, the minister does not know when she in fact said on May 28 about intermittent sentences, she did not know whether or not those people would be getting TAs?

How does the Premier support this Minister of Justice when in fact the judges and the defence attorneys and no one in the system knew that these people were getting out?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, their release and how they were being accommodated was in fact talked about. Under what terms, exactly what terms, I made the commitment to speak further about. There is an emergency provision within The Corrections Act which allows for the use of temporary absences. That is in fact what has been happening.

I hear members across the way listing individuals' long records and so on. This is not what we would like either. This is not a position that anyone would like to be in.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So the members opposite should not make out that this is somehow a position that we support; it is not a position we would like to be in. It is a position that, as quickly as Headingley can become up and running and we have the agreement of the workplace safety and health committees, we will certainly be moving to change.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, if we accept the minister's emergency situation, can the minister explain how it is that the judges who administer this justice, who sentence people to weekends, were not aware of this and how her Crown attorneys who sentence people and who made presentations in court were not aware of this emergency situation? Does this not suggest a complete lack of competence and capability by this Minister of Justice?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, again, I have spoken publicly about the way we were accommodating intermittent sentences. This is not a surprise. It is not a secret. But if there are members who did not know, who feel that they did not know--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the minister's response.

Mrs. Vodrey: If there are members of the community who feel that they did not know, then I am concerned about that too, and I made that clear from my answers very early on. If there is anyone who did not know about the accommodation, then we have acted to correct that today. [interjection]

Well, the members across the way say, you know, judges did not know and so on. Well, Madam Speaker, I think everyone knew about the Headingley riot, and I think everyone knew about the public statements.

But the important thing is that today, if there was any doubt in anyone's mind--because we did listen to others who say, here is who knew, here is who knew, well, I think it was fairly well known, but if there was anyone who did not know, we have acted to correct that today.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.