Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to obtain the unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the sequence for consideration of Estimates as outlined in sessional paper No. 142 tabled on March 24, 1998, and subsequently amended, to consider in Room 255 the Estimates of Status of Women, followed by the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Environment. These changes are to apply until the Estimates of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship are completed.
* (1430)
Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to alter the sequence of the order of Estimates in Room 255 to consider the Estimates of the Status of Women, followed by those of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship on completion of the Estimates of the Department of Environment until the Estimates of Culture are completed? Agreed? [agreed]
As previously agreed, the House will resume in Committee of Supply.
(Concurrent Sections)
JUSTICE
Before returning to that line, we would invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff as they are present.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have with me today my deputy minister, Mr. Bruce MacFarlane. I have with me Mr. Rob Finlayson, who is the assistant deputy minister of Prosecutions. I have Mr. Pat Sinnott, who is the executive director of financial--Administration. I know him as a numbers man, so that is why I said financial matters, but Administration; and I have Mr. Jeff Schnoor, who is my director of Policy Research. Mr. Jeff Schnoor was formerly with the Law Reform Commission. I am very pleased to have him within the department. I also have with me Mr. Wyman Sangster, who is the director of Public Safety.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister. Line 4.1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Chair, I have a series of questions on the minister's role in the appointment of judges to the Provincial Court. The first question I have is following on questions from the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). When did the minister receive the report or a synopsis of the report from Judge Chartier on the issue of bilingualism on the bench in Manitoba?
Mr. Toews: I met with Judge Chartier, who was at that time conducting the report. His report was in a draft stage. I did not see any formal completed report. As well, Judge Chartier has met with myself and other colleagues and discussed the report and its implications for government. That was in the earlier part of this year.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister remember what month he saw that draft report in?
Mr. Toews: I cannot even say that I saw a copy of the draft report. I know that Judge Chartier spoke from certain notes. He showed me notes, and I do not know whether that in fact was the report or even a draft report, but it was certainly the notes that he relied upon to explain his position in respect of the delivery of French language services for the courts.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister see these notes or this draft before or after the Order-in-Council was issued, I believe in January, in respect of the two appointments to the Provincial Court?
Mr. Toews: I do have the dates upon which I spoke to Judge Chartier, and I will get those dates, and if there were any other meetings with Judge Chartier in respect of that, I or my deputy will go through the schedules to see when those meetings took place.
* (1450)
Mr. Mackintosh: When the minister signed the Order-in-Council to begin the nominating process for the two vacancies in the Provincial Court, how was that matter communicated to the Chief Judge? Was the Order-in-Council sent to the Chief Judge or did a letter accompany the Order-in-Council or was there a meeting with the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: I do recall that I had a series of conversations with the Chief Judge related to the possibility of adding more judges to the court. I know that we had discussions in respect of the numbers of judges that were required and some of the issues that revolved around those appointments. I do not know how the actual Order-in-Council goes from cabinet or Executive Council once I have signed that and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has signed that. I believe the Lieutenant Governor also signs that. So I cannot say that. Many of these things are done through court staff, and it could have been transmitted through court staff, that is, staff that is Department of Justice staff but is assigned to the Courts Division.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister taking the position that he communicated to the Chief Judge directly that at least one of the two positions to be filled on the bench must be bilingual?
Mr. Toews: We had a number of conversations over a number of period of months, and one of the issues was, in fact, that of the requirement of a bilingual judge, that is, French and English speaking.
The issue arose initially at and around the time that Judge Martin of The Pas was either retiring or was going to resign. It was in around that time. I believe he eventually resigned and retired. I cannot recall whether the first conversation took place prior to the resignation and retirement or after, but it was at that time that the issue of a French language judge was raised with me. So that was sometime last year. I cannot give a date on that. I can determine from my records, but it would have been in around the time that Judge Martin was leaving the bench.
The Chief Judge and I at that time discussed the issue of French language services and specifically the issue of Judge Gregoire was raised with me, concern being expressed that Mr. Gregoire would be leaving on a one-year sabbatical. At the same time, during that time as well and again over a series of conversations the concern was expressed to me about all the part-time judges who would be retiring as a result of legislation in March of 1998, just past. So we talked about French language services, we talked about the retirement of judges, how many judges we needed, for what purposes, and their qualifications. One of them very specifically was the issue of an additional bilingual judge.
Mr. Mackintosh: What is the minister's understanding as to when Judge Gregoire will take a leave of absence?
Mr. Toews: Well, at that time my understanding was when it was first raised with me, it was expressed, I believe the Chief Judge said within 18 months. So last year sometime she said within 18 months, I think that is, if my recollection is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister now aware that Judge Gregoire will be leaving apparently not until the summer or the fall of 1999?
Mr. Toews: No, in fact I am not aware of when he is leaving. The only issue was that when that matter was raised with me, it was a concern that was presented with me last year, and I knew that we had to respond to that in a timely fashion.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, other than having general discussions with the Chief Judge about bilingual capacity on the bench, did the minister at any time communicate to the Chief Judge a request that one of the two at least of the judges to be appointed following the Order-in-Council in January be bilingual?
Mr. Toews: Well, it was clearly my understanding that one of those judges would fulfil that capacity.
Mr. Mackintosh: If that was indeed the case, would the minister explain what action he took after he saw the ads in local media and perhaps in the Gazette advertising the two vacancies and asking for applicants to come forward, noting that the ads did not ask for a preference or a requirement for bilingualism?
Mr. Toews: I do not believe I have ever seen a copy of those ads until they were produced for me I believe by the deputy minister some time later. I remember the deputy minister perhaps a month ago produced that ad for me, or maybe not even a month ago, and the copy that was presented to me was on a pink piece of paper. The ads are done by the Chief Judge, and I wanted to review that particular ad. I did not have a copy of that ad, and I asked the deputy minister to produce what in fact the ad was. The ads are in fact done by the Chief Judge, and I leave that administrative issue to the Chief Judge as chair of the board.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, my question still stands then. What did the minister do after having seen the ad and noting that bilingualism was not preferred or required of any of the candidates?
Mr. Toews: Well, my deputy advises me that, to the best of his recollection, when we had that discussion on that ad, it was sometime after this controversy arose. I do not think I did anything in particular as a result of seeing that ad. The issue had already arisen.
Mr. Mackintosh: I know the minister, like myself, sometimes does not like to read the paper, but I find it unusual it never came to the minister's attention that there was this posting in very public places: a fairly large ad in the Winnipeg Free Press; there was an ad in the Headnotes and Footnotes, which I am confident the minister receives from the Bar Association; and there were postings, I believe, in the Manitoba Gazette. I am bewildered if the minister is saying that he has never seen those ads which were posted a number of months ago.
Is that what the minister is saying, that he is not keeping up with these kinds of publications?
Mr. Toews: Well, I think, in this particular case, that is accurate. Not only did I not see the English language ad, I also asked because a concern had been raised with me as to whether the ad had been placed in the French language. I wanted to ensure, in fact, that there had been a French language ad for the judge as well. I cannot recall whether the deputy produced that French language ad after I had seen the English one. I believe that is what in fact happened. That is my recollection. So I can say to the member that I did not see the ad at any time before the deputy showed that to me. If I did, I certainly do not recall seeing it, and it was simply not something that I would look at.
* (1500)
Mr. Mackintosh: We understand, and, of course, the minister knows full well, that the allegations being made are not those of the opposition in this matter. They are allegations being made by elected and esteemed members of the legal community in Manitoba, leadership in that community. One of the allegations is that the minister was angered when he saw the list that was presented to him by the Chief Judge or the nominating committee. Is the minister saying that his understanding that the appointments, or at least one or two of them, were to be bilingual and the fact that they were not one of the reasons for his anger?
Mr. Toews: Well, as I recall the discussion, in fact, the list was in a sealed envelope which was not opened while we had that discussion. I specifically raised that particular issue, and we did have discussions about that. That was before I saw the list. Before the end of that meeting, I can indicate that I did see the list and that I was very pleased with the list.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand from the minister that he had a meeting with two of the cabinet appointments to the nominating committee. Would the minister tell us what two members they were? Was it McPherson and Bottomley, or was Mr. McDonald one of them?
Mr. Toews: Once the committee had, in fact, been appointed, that the three LG in C members had been appointed, my secretary arranged an appointment for all three members. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet with the third for one reason or another. I have never met with her to discuss this particular issue. I do not ever recall meeting that particular individual in any event. It may have been at a social occasion or something, but I do not think I have had any conversations with her--perhaps in passing because I do know who her husband is and I may well have been introduced to her in that context. I know I have met with her husband at a social or at other functions.
So I met with the two members who could attend, the committee members, and my concern was generated by issues related to appointments to the bench and what we as a government were concerned about. One of the specific issues--and I know criticisms made of a prior appointment process were why a female had not been appointed, and I think it is totally appropriate for me, as Justice minister, to raise with members appointed by the government to ensure that the committee consider applicants not solely on very narrow legal criteria, but also on a broader community relevance.
So for that reason I spoke to both of those members and, again, unfortunately, unable to meet with the third member. I did so in the presence of my special assistant, and we went through a number of issues which I felt was relevant for the committee to consider in respect of the appointment of a judge.
Mr. Mackintosh: When was that meeting held?
Mr. Toews: That meeting was held on April 9, my actual diary notes indicate.
Mr. Mackintosh: Were there other meetings with any of the cabinet appointments or other communications with them since the time of their appointment until this issue arose?
Mr. Toews: I do not believe--no, not on this issue. I would not have met with them to discuss this issue. I want it to be very clear that I dealt with it in a very structured way. My concern was not to appoint or suggest any names, nor did I make any suggestions to them in terms of names, but I wanted to look at general criteria which the government felt was important in respect of this issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, since the Order-in-Council was issued early in the year, I find it interesting that the minister would meet with the cabinet appointments as late as April when the committee was well along its way toward recommending certain names.
What propriety does the minister think there is in meeting with members of the nominating committee, an arm's-length organization, a body established under the act, as late as in April to discuss the matters that he is describing?
Mr. Toews: Well, in fact, I believe I was advised by the Chief Judge. I know I was advised by someone who indicated--I believe it was the Chief Judge--that the nominations closed March 31. No one saw any names certainly by that time, and by April 9 I am not aware of whether any of these members had received the list of names or any applicants at that time.
I cannot say whether they did or not. I do not know. But certainly they had not yet met as a committee, I understand, on April 9. So I know that they had not at that time considered any names as a committee. So that is all the information I have on that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister not have a chat with these two cabinet appointments about the interest that he would have and urging that they be on the lookout for supporters of the Conservative Party when they are going through the names in the near future?
Mr. Toews: Absolutely not. I never made any such indication. I believe I was very clear in what I as a Justice minister was looking for. I certainly did not indicate that the members should be people of the Conservative Party. I certainly did not want to disqualify members of the Conservative Party, but no such suggestion was made to them that they only consider Conservatives or was the issue of political party mentioned to them at all.
* (1510)
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister then list what issues, as he called them, were raised with the two nominating committee members as he raised them with those two?
Mr. Toews: To the best of my recollection, what occurred during that conversation was once Mr. Bottomley and Mr. McPherson came to my office--my assistant, Mr. Haasbeek was there as well--I indicated to them very clearly what my purpose was for calling them into that meeting.
I indicated to them of the importance of what they were doing. I spoke to them about the power of judges, that once appointed would be appointed for life and would not be accountable in the same way that politicians are accountable. I made it clear at the onset of my conversation that I was not telling them who to appoint, but I said to them I want to make clear to you what our needs were.
I indicated to them a number of issues. I talked about the importance of criminal law experience. I talked to them about the issue that a Provincial Court judge does not simply hear criminal proceedings but in fact also in our rural areas deals with family law, so I wanted to make sure that anyone who had that kind of application or knowledge would be considered. I indicated that criminal Crown experience was something that I would be looking at because I believe that criminal Crown lawyers are some of the finest lawyers in our system. I certainly indicated to them that the person could be a defence lawyer; I was not excluding that.
I specifically raised with them that one of these should be bilingual, and in that context--I just indicate that Mary Humphrey from my staff is here, as well, and she is the Executive Director of Judicial Services. At that time, we discussed why I felt that one of these people should be bilingual.
I talked about Judge Gregoire going away for a year. I spoke to them about the initiative that Judge Chartier was planning to introduce and in fact had discussed with some of my colleagues and me personally. I talked specifically about our needs in that respect.
I indicated the importance of gender balance. I said that in respect of the two positions that they could have as many as 12 names, and I indicated I would prefer as many names as possible. I indicated that, generally speaking, I would prefer a list that had at least six men and six women. I wanted a measure of gender equality. For me, that was a very important issue. I had indicated to them that I was concerned that at a prior appointment process cabinet did not have the benefit of female representation on a list. I am sensitive to the concerns of women's organizations who believe that women deserve to be on the bench and are every bit as qualified as men. We talked about that particular issue.
So the issue of bilingualism, the issue of gender balance, and again one of the other issues that I raised was that they review all names, that of the applications that the committee receives, they receive all names; that there was to be no screening out of names prior to them seeing the list; that as many applications as there were, they were to see each and every application; and that they would want to consider each of them on their own merits.
I specifically indicated to them that they should not feel intimidated by the two judges and two lawyers on the committee. I know sometimes dealing with judges and lawyers can be very intimidating for laypeople, but I told them that I valued their opinion very, very much. I indicated to them that just as judges and lawyers have their own interests and their own agendas, so the community has a very valid interest and concern.
That was, in essence, the meeting that I had with those two individuals, and I think the meeting went very, very well. They were appreciative of my comments and, frankly, given our existing system under the Provincial Court nomination process, I would do exactly the same thing again. I think it is very, very important that I, as a Justice minister, indicate those types of concerns to the community members.
In respect of the other members, I felt it would be more appropriate for any comments that I might have to be transmitted through the Chief Judge, and those are the nature of the discussions I had with the Chief Judge in terms of other issues.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister characterized these issues as concerns, to use his words, and indeed by suggesting that he wanted as many names as possible and that there was a preference for Crowns, as appears from his comments, it is also to be noted that he said that he had a concern, or he said that one position should be bilingual. In other words, these were not criteria; these were not specified bases of disqualification or selection but rather his preferences. So the minister has confirmed for the committee that indeed when he had the opportunity, he did not relay two cabinet appointments, two at least, that one position shall be bilingual.
Does the minister accept as appropriate that he, at this stage, indicated preferences to the type of lawyer, in other words, the Crowns that he prefers?
Mr. Toews: No, in fact I simply indicated that I wanted people with criminal law experience. I thought it was very important. I did not specify that they should be Crown attorneys. In fact, I said they could well be defence lawyers, but I said those are some of the things that I would be looking for in terms of making my recommendations to cabinet. I very specifically said that one of those positions should be bilingual and that was consistent with my conversations with the Chief Judge.
* (1520)
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister provide these two cabinet appointments, or the third one as well, with any document, with any writing at all, any letter, any description of the concerns that he had as expressed orally?
Mr. Toews: I certainly did not supply them with anything other than their letters of appointment, or that would have been done through my office. I did not supply that to them. I believe I contacted--I cannot recall whether I contacted any of the three directly on their appointment itself to the nominating committee. That is generally the practice. I cannot say whether I did, but I believe that once cabinet approves a name, the notification of those people took place either through my office in one way or another.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Mackintosh: After the closing of applications on March 31, and I will take the minister's information on that one as correct, was the minister given a list of those who had applied for the two positions?
Mr. Toews: No, at no time was I provided with a list. The only thing that I knew was from the Chief Judge, who advised me after closing. Again, I do not know whether it was March 31, but I think the ad indicates when the closing was, and I would stay with that. If it is March 31 on the ad, that is the day. But I know that afterwards the Chief Judge, in a conversation, indicated to me that she had received 66 applications.
Mr. Mackintosh: What other information did the Chief Judge give at that time?
Mr. Toews: Well, there was no information given on names. Many people over the next couple of weeks came up to me and indicated that they had applied. In fact, that continued through various people. Various people would come up to me and ask me to please consider such and such a name. These would be people walking up to me off of the street. In fact, I do not know how many people would have phoned or called or contacted me, either members of the legal community, members off of the street or people who applied directly. Indeed, I recall one specific candidate who came up to me and said he had just been interviewed and told me that. I simply indicated, well, that was nice, and we would see what would happen.
So I cannot tell you who told me what, but at no time was I ever presented with a list of 66 people and told, these are the people on the list.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister at any time before being given the name of the nominees a list of those who had been interviewed?
Mr. Toews: No, at no time was I ever given a list of those that were interviewed. Again, people would come up to me and tell me that they had been interviewed or others would phone me up and tell me that so and so had been interviewed and would I consider that person.
Mr. Mackintosh: Now, there have been allegations that a particular individual, Glen Joyal, was one individual who was interviewed. Was the minister aware that that individual was interviewed before this matter was raised in the newspapers on May 7?
Mr. Toews: I certainly knew that Mr. Joyal was one of the 66 applications that had been told to me. I cannot remember the source, and indeed I believe I knew that he was interviewed as well, yes.
Mr. Mackintosh: What understanding did the minister have of Mr. Joyal's ability to perform the practice of law in both official languages, or English and French, I should say?
Mr. Toews: Well, I have known Mr. Joyal as a Crown attorney. Mr. Joyal and I worked together in the Attorney General's department, and not only does Mr. Joyal speak French, I believe that he speaks Italian as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister aware whether there were any other candidates that were interviewed who were bilingual?
Mr. Toews: I do not know of any other--I cannot recall any other names that were mentioned to me, whether they were interviewed or on the list of 66, who were bilingual. I could not say that off the top of my head; I do not know.
Mr. Mackintosh: When was the minister first told who was on the list to be presented by the nominating committee? What date?
Mr. Toews: I was not told that. In fact, the Chief Judge delivered the list to me in a sealed envelope, and I opened that at our meeting. We went through that list after we had a fairly lengthy conversation, and that time was the first time that I saw the list.
Mr. Mackintosh: What date was that?
Mr. Toews: It was a Monday. That is what I recall. Perhaps May 4 could be the day.
Mr. Mackintosh: Could the minister just check his schedule to determine whether that was May 4 or whether it was the earlier Monday?
Mr. Toews: Yes, to the best of my recollection, that was May 4.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister have conversations with the Chief Judge about the contents of the sealed envelope, if he will, before the meeting on May 4?
Mr. Toews: No.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister have any communications with any member of the nominating committee about the contents of the sealed envelope and the names before the meeting of May 4?
Mr. Toews: To the best of my recollection, the interviews took place the week before that. That would have been--if the 4th was a Monday, the week before, they took place on the Monday and the Tuesday, I am advised, by the director of Judicial Services. They took place on the week before, Monday or Tuesday. Certainly during that time I had no contact with any member of that nominating committee, certainly not in respect of any issue related to this. I cannot recall if I spoke to the Chief Judge personally. I may have had a phone call sometime during the week or a couple of phone calls. I am not certain.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister have a phone call from the Chief Judge, or did he make a phone call to the Chief Judge at any time before the meeting with her on May 4?
Mr. Toews: Before May 4, did I have a phone call with her?
An Honourable Member: May 4.
Mr. Toews: Yes.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee what the contents of the discussion were with the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: Now, you are asking me: did I have a conversation with her before May 4? I did, yes.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am talking about in the days leading up to the meeting with the Chief Judge on May 4. Did the minister have a telephone conversation with the Chief Judge after the interviews and before the meeting on May 4?
Mr. Toews: Well, as I am trying to recall, I do not believe I had any conversation with her in the days leading up to that May 4 meeting.
* (1530)
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister have a sense as to who was on the list and who was not on the list before the meeting on May 4?
Mr. Toews: No, I did not.
Mr. Mackintosh: There are allegations that have come to our attention that the minister had made comments at some kind of a public gathering to the effect that the minister was not happy with the contents of the list--on the weekend of May 1, 2 and 3. I am just wondering how the minister would respond to that allegation.
Mr. Toews: The only issue that had been raised with me was the issue of the bilingual issue. Again, I did not know of any of the names; those names were not disclosed to me by any members of the committee or the Chief Judge directly.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister has just told the committee that the issue of a bilingual candidate did arise on that weekend. Will the minister clarify that?
Mr. Toews: Well, I know that the issue--see there were two issues that were of a concern, legislation that was being considered by cabinet and the issue of bilingualism. But both those issues had been raised at some time with the Chief Judge. No, the issue of the legislation would not have because that was an issue that came about as a result of a cabinet meeting. So I cannot recall on that particular issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: Why would the issue of bilingualism regarding the appointments arise in a conversation on the weekend?
Mr. Toews: I do not know whether it arose on the weekend or not. There were numerous people coming up to me for numerous reasons talking to me about issues of candidates. I might just say, these are people coming in right off the street to talk to me, I mean, literally, lawyers or others expressing concerns about this person should get the judgeship or that person should get the judgeship. The way I dealt with the particular issue was that, look, it is a committee process, those names would be raised with me and that I would make my recommendations to cabinet.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister make a representation to another individual on that weekend that if there was not a bilingual candidate on the list presented to him by the nominating committee the list would be rejected?
Mr. Toews: I do not believe I made any such statement to anybody that weekend.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister said he was also raising the issue in this time period about legislation being considered by cabinet. Is that legislation to amend The Provincial Court Act to remove or to change the composition of the nominating committee?
Mr. Toews: Certainly we have had discussions in respect of that particular legislation in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision related to the payment of provincial judges case. The case raises a number of issues including not only the independence of the judiciary but the independence of the executive from the judiciary and the propriety of having any judges on any committee related to executive functions.
For example, I cannot remember when this occurred but shortly after I became Justice minister--maybe, well, certainly last year I believe it was, the issue was raised in a very peculiar context, and that was that judges were sitting on civil service nominating meetings for positions. I felt that was inappropriate that judges should be sitting on civil service commissions to hire civil servants. When I found out that judges were sitting on civil service panels, I said that should be stopped, that should never occur again because I felt that, as valuable as their insight is, judges, in involving themselves in those kinds of functions, I think, compromised the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. That arose essentially out of my concerns of the case dealing with the judges' pay, and the issue of the legislation similarly raises similar concerns. I understand that in fact this is an issue that the Chief Justice of Canada has raised as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: Who was the minister expressing this concern to over these several days?
Mr. Toews: I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I understand from the minister that he had been discussing over the course of the Friday and the weekend, with particular individuals, two issues, one being bilingual candidacies for the vacancies, the second being legislation being considered by cabinet which was amendments to The Provincial Court Act. That is what I garnered from the minister's early answer. So I ask now: Who is it that the minister was having conversations with during that period of time with regard to the legislation under consideration by cabinet?
Mr. Toews: In fact, I do not recall having those conversations on that weekend. If there were, I do not believe that I was involved in any such conversations over the weekend.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was the minister involved in conversations with individuals in the period since the end of interviews earlier that week and before the sealed envelope was presented to him on the Monday with regard to the legislation considered by cabinet and bilingual candidates?
Mr. Toews: I was certainly involved in conversations with staff. I know that I called in Legislative Counsel as early as--I cannot recall the date but it occurred some time in April to draft legislation dealing with that particular issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: Was one of the individuals who contacted the minister urging a particular appointment Mr. Glen Joyal?
Mr. Toews: I am sorry, I do not understand your question. If you could say that very clearly.
* (1540)
Mr. Mackintosh: Was Mr. Glen Joyal one of the individuals who contacted the minister with regard to an appointment to the bench?
Mr. Toews: No, Mr. Joyal did not contact me with respect to an appointment.
Mr. Mackintosh: Did any other individual contact the minister to urge a consideration or appointment of Mr. Joyal to the bench?
Mr. Toews: During that period of time that we are discussing?
Mr. Mackintosh: From the time of the posting of the vacancies to the time he received the sealed envelope.
Mr. Toews: I cannot recall anyone specifically urging me to appoint Mr. Joyal. I knew that Mr. Joyal was one of the 66. I do not recall the source that I learned that from.
Mr. Mackintosh: My colleague has some questions as well. Before that, I am just wondering if the minister can now describe for the committee in detail the conversation, and if he can time it or he can put it in the correct sequence, with the Chief Judge on May 4.
Mr. Toews: I think I have answered those questions extensively during Question Period, and that is where I am going to leave that issue.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, the minister has indicated at the interview process concluded early in the--or by the middle of the week previous to May 4, during which time the Appointments Committee presumably came to its conclusions about the names that it wished to put forward.
When was the minister made aware by the Chief Judge that the list was completed and ready to be the subject of a meeting?
Mr. Toews: I do not believe the Chief Judge contacted me on that issue. I believe the Chief Judge contacted one of my staff to set up a meeting for the Monday.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister has indicated a short while ago in committee that he had a serious concern about the need for a Francophone judge. We have found it strange that, if that were the case, the ad did not specify that ability. Nevertheless, the minister claims he has had those discussions and that he was very concerned to indicate the need for that capacity on the bench.
When did he first become aware that there was no Francophone name on the list, Francophone capacity on the list?
Mr. Toews: I cannot--the only issue I know that I raised with the Chief Judge is that particular issue at the onset of our meeting before that list was opened, and so we discussed that particular issue at that time.
Mr. Sale: So, Mr. Chairperson, then, the minister is saying that he asked the Chief Judge at some point, either before the meeting or at the meeting, whether or not there was a Francophone name on the list. So when did he ask that question? Did he ask it in the week previous when he was aware that there was gong to be a meeting, or did he ask it on a Monday morning?
Mr. Toews: I asked that question of her on the Monday morning.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, then what was the judge's response as chairperson of the committee?
Mr. Toews: We raised that issue, we discussed that issue, and my answers in the House are my response to that.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister has said moments ago that he asked the judge the question of whether there was a Francophone member on the list or not. The question of the response of the judge is not in his statement. What was the judge's response to his simple question? Did she say yes, or did she say no?
Mr. Toews: I can indicate that at that time we had a discussion about whether or not there was a bilingual--I do not know if I used the word Francophone. In fact, I might have even used French speaking or bilingual. I do not know if I used Francophone, but that issue was raised at that time and we had a discussion about that.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister is obviously indicating that the answer of the judge was no. Obviously, that must have been the answer. Can he confirm that?
Mr. Toews: My answers in the House speak to that issue.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister is behaving in the same way we saw earlier in the debate about his resignation. Clearly, there is a gag order that cuts two ways here; the minister is gagged, and the judge is gagged.
In the context of that meeting, then, who made the request that additional names be considered?
Mr. Toews: I have answered that question extensively.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I respectfully ask the minister to answer it again then if it is clear. I am not clear as to the answer to that question, so perhaps he could help me understand what it is he has said in this regard. Who made the suggestion that additional names be added to the list?
Mr. Toews: I have answered those questions.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, this is quite astounding. We have a circumstance here where the minister received a sealed list. He claims that the list was not opened during his discussion. He will not even go so far as to be forthright with the committee and say the judge told me that there is no Francophone on my list, there is no French-speaking judge on this list. The minister says they then had a conversation, but he refuses to be forthright about the nature of that conversation.
Let us make it clear again that no matter what that conversation had in it, the law was broken, because there is no provision in the act for the adding of names. There is no provision in the act for the refusal to accept a list. There is no provision in the act for the minister putting forward names. So it does not matter, Mr. Chairperson, who made that suggestion, somebody broke the law. You cannot add names. You cannot send the list back except under circumstances that are outlined in the act, and this was not one of them.
So will the minister simply tell the committee who suggested that additional names be considered and that one of them at least be bilingual, Francophone, French speaking, I do not care which? Was it the minister? Was it the judge?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, this gives me an opportunity why I would be reluctant to answer this individual's questions, because it is a very important thing. Frankly, every time I provide an answer, this member twists the answer in a very peculiar fashion in order to meet his own ends.
I want to refer to a few articles that sort of govern my thinking in dealing with this particular member.
* (1550)
Mr. Mackintosh: A point of order, Mr. Chair. I know what the minister's speech is going to be. I have heard it twice today now. It is, of course, a personal attack based on a certain editorial writer's view and has no relevance to the particular question, a very important question, before the minister.
Therefore, I ask, Mr. Chair, that you call the minister to order and ask that he now make his answer relevant to the question.
Mr. Toews: Well, on the same point of order, this is a member who has been known for his creative counting and his creative way of dealing with facts. I have indicated very clearly what my position was, what occurred, and this member cannot even take basic facts and understand them. I have made my position very clear. Therefore, I think it is important that others know why I am taking the position I am with respect to this particular member.
Mr. Mackintosh: On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, the minister has made his three different positions all very clear, which is the reason we are asking the question now. We want a detailed account as to what took place in the conversation on May 4 with the Chief Judge, matters that are absolutely essential to the entire issue. That is why we are calling on you to call the minister to order and answer the question, in a relevant manner, that is posed to him.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): There is no actual point of order, but I will ask the minister to deal with the question as much as he is comfortable in doing so.
Mr. Toews: I have been very clear about what occurred. My answers in the House stand, and I am prepared to leave it at that.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, how did the minister know that the sealed list did not contain a Francophone judge?
Mr. Toews: I have indicated my answers in the House and here, and that is where I am going to leave it.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, could the minister indicate his understanding of the construction of the act under which this nomination process took place, and could he explain, point out, reference the section that allowed either the chair of the committee or the minister to reject a list and to request that names be added to the list? Could he point to the section that enables that to happen?
Mr. Toews: I have provided my answer in the House on that issue as well.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, this is a very interesting situation. The minister feels free to criticize question askers on the basis of some claimed inability on that question asker's part to handle statistics or some other such matter.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
It is a very interesting technique. Usually one tries to discredit a witness, but it is unusual to try and discredit a questioner. I would think the minister might have a little discomfort with that as a member of the legal profession, that someone who asks questions as a matter of fact and what happened in a meeting would be challenged on the basis of credibility raised by a newspaper editorial as to their right and ability to ask questions.
This is a strange legal approach, but let me ask again: Why is it that the minister is unable to tell us whether or not there is any section in the act that would enable the list to be returned with new names to be added by anyone? Why is the minister unable to tell us who made the suggestion that we could take the list back and perhaps add a couple of names, one of whom would be bilingual, surprise, surprise, Mr. Joyal?
Why is the minister unable to answer those factual questions? Clearly they are matters of simple fact. Somebody suggested, let us try again. We will add some more names. Somebody made that suggestion. There were only two people present capable of making the suggestion. Why has he thrown a cloak of secrecy and a cloak of silence over the truth of what happened in this meeting?
Mr. Toews: Well, first of all, I did not realize that I was a witness here. I thought this was a committee, and this is the first that I have heard that I am a witness. So, you know, again this shows how this member has totally confused this entire process. I am here to do Estimates on the Department of Justice. This particular member is wandering around, dealing with an issue that has nothing to do with the Estimates of the department. He says I am a witness. He says this is somehow a legal process.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I described an analogy that I wish to put on the record, which was the analogy that in a court proceeding one often tries to discredit a witness in terms of his recitation of the facts on the basis of some presumed reputation or whatever. I did not at any point indicate that I considered the minister a witness. I was using an analogy. I am sorry the minister is unable to understand use of analogy, but that was my intent. I was questioning why the minister would attack a questioner, that it was more common in a legal situation to attack the credibility of a witness.
Indeed, the Legislature is a court, always has been understood as a court. That is what we are engaged in, a process of debate in the highest court in the land, which is the Legislature of Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is simply clarifying his view on the matter.
Mr. Toews: Well, thank you for that clarification, because he indicated: Why is he attacking the questioner? Well, let me tell you why I am attacking the questioner. The first article that I wanted to refer to speaks directly to this issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: We are getting stonewalling again from the minister. The minister is engaging in irrelevancies. The critical question before this committee is who raised the issue of sending the list back to the nominating committee. Whose idea was it to turn a one-way street into a two-way street in search of the minister's candidate? And we are calling on the Chair, once again, would he please require or direct the minister to answer the question that is before the committee rather than engaging in personal attacks and irrelevancies.
Mr. Toews: Well, yes, now is it not interesting? The member for St. Johns changes the question. The question that was directly put to me and clarified by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was: Why are you attacking the questioner? So I would like to answer that question. That was a question directly put to me by the member for Crescentwood.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to finish your response.
Mr. Toews: The Winnipeg Free Press on January 17, 1998, spoke very directly about this particular member and talked about his creative counting or--
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Chair, on a new point of order, the minister was given a question, and he is not answering it. It is not a matter that is relevant to the Estimates for the Department of Justice, the minister's conduct in a very serious matter before Manitobans.
The minister, I am sure, is getting the calls that I am getting, that we are getting as a caucus, deep laments about how the Chief Judge's position has been corrupted by this minister, how he has compromised the position of the Chief Judge as a result of his ministerial statement in the House.
* (1600)
I ask the minister: Would he please consider the public interest here, the integrity of the Chief Judge's office, his office, and let us deal with the issues and clarify them? He was doing fine until he got to the questions about what took place at the meeting, and it appears obvious, Mr. Chair, that this minister is subject to a gag order negotiated with the Chief Judge, contrary and undermining the very purpose of the Legislative Assembly and this committee. I ask, Mr. Chair, your co-operation and ask that you enforce the rules here and enforce relevancy in debate, a very important rule.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Environment): On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have recently completed consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Environment, and I came into this committee a little while ago. You know, I am hearing exactly the same questions, exactly the same answers as we have been hearing for some time. Now, the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) may think that threshing the same old kernels over and over again somehow brings out something else in the harvest. I do not know. But the point is that he is on a point of order arguing about relevancy, and this is not Question Period, with all due respect. This is a committee where members from all sides of the House are entitled to take part, and I know the honourable member for St. Johns would prefer to get some kind of different answer than he is getting, and I understand that. I can understand his frustration too because sometimes just pounding on a desk simply does not have any quality in a debate. That does not really take us very far down the road here.
I get involved now only because the member has raised a point of order. There is no point of order. This is committee, and the minister is given the same kind of latitude as other honourable members in a committee proceeding. I mean, we are on item 1, I believe, which allows very liberal interpretation of any kind of relevancy rule. After all, this is Committee of the Whole.
Now, that is my understanding of the rules of this place. If it were Question Period, the honourable member might be getting closer to having some kind of a point which, as Steve Martin says, is a good thing to have if you are going to tell a story. If you make a point, it makes it more interesting for the listener.
Mr. Chairman, there is no point of order here, and I have sat here a very short period of time and listened to several points of order being raised. The minister, as he has pointed out, is here to deal with issues of importance to people in Manitoba with respect to his department. The members, just by attempting to browbeat the minister, are not going to get more out of him. He is a very intelligent individual, the Minister of Justice of our province, and we are pleased to have him serving in that capacity.
The honourable member knows this about the minister. Simply going over and over and over the same ground to me is not very productive, and by no stretch does the honourable member for St. Johns have a point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns, on his point of order, does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Toews: So the question that was put to me by the member for Crescentwood was: Why are you attacking the questioner?
I will tell you why. He, in a number of cases, has totally shown himself to be unhelpful in any exercise to determine any true issues. As Mr. Brian Cole of the Winnipeg Free Press said, he is a desperate man. Right now, Mr. Cole indicates that "as a result, government critics are desperately searching for the gloom and doom in an otherwise upbeat picture." They are talking about the economy. Mr. Cole says: "It's an ugly job, but someone has to do it, and no one does it with more flair than Mr. Sale."
He goes on. He says: "A good example of his creativity"-- and I think Mr. Cole is being very kind when he uses the word "creativity"--"can be found in a letter the Crescentwood MLA wrote to his newspaper earlier this week bemoaning Finance Minister Eric Stefanson's use of job creation numbers."
Mr. Mackintosh: You know, if we do not have confidence in the minister as a result of this issue of the appointment of judges, it is only going to get worse with this kind of response in dealing with a very serious issue. I regret that there are people out there that have to read or listen to this kind of nonsense.
Again, Mr. Chair, I ask you, please enforce the rule of relevancy, direct the minister to deal with the issues before the committee rather than engage in a personal, irrelevant attack on the member for Crescentwood.
Mr. Toews: Same point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Honourable minister, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, we have been over these answers over and over and over again. I am willing to stand by the answers that I gave. Those are the answers. I gave them in the House. Now he has raised a new question. He says: Why am I attacking the questioner? I am telling him very explicitly that, just like many people in Manitoba have no faith in this MLA's ability to deal in appropriate fashion with facts, I have no confidence in him either.
So the articles, I was simply using them to demonstrate exactly what I believe that this member does, not just in this area but in every single area that he is involved in.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Chair, on the same point of order, the minister is continuing--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister has the right to finish his point of order, and I would advise the committee of that. I have recognized the honourable minister to address the point of order, and I will leave it at that.
The honourable minister, to conclude.
Mr. Toews: Yes, so, basically, this is a person who distorts meaning and criticizes without being constructive, and that is the answer to the question that he put to me.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.
I would advise the committee at this time that we are on Item 4.1.(b)(1) which allows a lot of scope in terms of the questions that are posed to the minister, and the response is equally the same in terms of the scope, in terms of which the minister chooses to answer the question.
So, with that, I would hope that the committee would take that into consideration, so that we can proceed in an orderly manner with the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Mackintosh: I appeal your ruling, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: There has been an appeal of the Chair by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). The honourable member for St. Johns wishes to challenge the ruling. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour, please respond by saying yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please respond, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it, and the ruling of the Chair is sustained.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, when the minister--[interjection]
Mr. Toews: On a point of order, I have not answered the question. When the point of order arose, I was in the midst of answering the question. I had not completed my response, and the question that was very specifically put to me and clarified by the member was why is he attacking the questioner, and so I will respond to that question.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does have a point of order. He was completing his response, and I would ask the minister to complete your response to the question posed by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).
* (1610)
Mr. Toews: So, in Mr. Cole's words, what the member for Crescentwood says is a classic case on how to manipulate in order to produce the result you want. So the reference there is in his letter, and I am quoting here from Mr. Cole: "The NDP critic argued that Mr. Stefanson had misled Manitobans by stating last November that 'this year there had been more than 15,000 new jobs created in Manitoba.' The truth, Mr. Sale argued, was that only 2,200 jobs had been created in 1997."
Again, here is an example of how he then uses facts by simply failing to mention significant issues. What Mr. Cole indicates is that he fails to mention that there are many ways of looking at job figures, and all of them are legitimate depending on the question you are trying to answer.
So Mr. Cole goes through a lengthy explanation about how our Finance minister approached the problem, and then, in the words of Mr. Cole, "reveals his talent for manipulating facts to serve a political end." I mean, that is the member for Crescentwood's (Mr. Sale) reputation. He manipulates facts to serve a political end, and he does it on a consistent basis.
Again, in the second article here, May 2, and this is a number of months later, and, obviously, the member for Crescentwood did not learn. [interjection] Well, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) says the Free Press is repetitive. I think the Free Press also gets it right and sometimes has to make the point more than once. I do not always agree with everything that the Free Press writes, but I know that I do read the newspaper just to ensure that I am not missing any particular issue that I should be considering.
Now, here, on May 2, the editorialist--again, it does not indicate who that is--says--and it could be someone different from Mr. Cole, although Mr. Cole is the editor, but I believe others write as well. He says, and I quote: "Manitobans were treated to another example of this weakness," and the weakness is to distort the meaning of statistics or to criticize without being constructive. "Manitobans were treated to another example of this weakness when NDP MLA"--and that is the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale)--"endeavoured to find a cloud on what most people see as Manitoba's sunny economic horizon." And so--
Mr. Mackintosh: The situation is untenable here. The rights of members of the opposition are being infringed by a minister who is engaging in irrelevancies to the Estimates of the Department of Justice and the questions specifically posed to the minister. I call on you, Mr. Chair, to call this minister to order so this committee can get down to the business of Manitobans, deal with the public concerns, the extremely serious issues that are facing both his office and that of the Chief Judge so that we can get into the details of the meeting between the minister and the Chief Judge and whoever else was there on May 4. I ask you to consider the purpose of the very Estimates itself and the content of the question and answer.
Mr. McCrae: For a fly on the wall or someone else outside coming in and listening to what is going on here, Mr. Chairman, as I have done recently coming into this discussion, you would have to conclude that something very, very repetitive is going on here. We have members on one side accusing the other of being repetitive. We have members on the other side accusing the ones on the first side of being repetitive, all of them seeming to accuse the Winnipeg Free Press of being repetitive, and then we have these repetitive points of order followed by repetitive responses followed by repetitive rulings.
Does anybody not notice that we are kind of going around in circles with this, Mr. Chairman? There is no more merit to this point of order than any of the others that have been raised this afternoon. I mean, that is pretty clear, and I appreciate the honourable members are trying to make a point. They are not trying to seek information, because the minister has clearly made his response to these questions, and these honourable members know the minister is not one who is going to be easily tricked by members of the calibre of the two that are engaged in this discussion this afternoon. That is not likely to happen, so I am just wondering if honourable members, I mean, especially the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) with his background knows darn well that he has not raised a valid point of order in the last half an hour. He knows that, and yet he continues to raise them.
Who is really being repetitive around here, Mr. Chairman? I just appeal to members on all of the sides of this table to perhaps maybe see it in their consciences to put the people of Manitoba first and perhaps not waste their money in the way that they are with this repetitive discussion. Maybe we can get on with some real discussion that is going to yield some fruit, perhaps, for honourable members on the New Democratic Party side, because it is clear to me after all of this that the minister has said what he is going to say on this topic.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have refrained from entering into the debate about points of order. Clearly the minister has decided to ignore the questions that I raised and to respond to a hypothetical analogy which I raised and used and explained to him.
The two questions, Mr. Chairperson, just so you can rule appropriately on relevance, were these: What section of the act gives permission to either the Chief Judge or to the minister to send back a list of nominees for positions that have been posted and interviewed? What section of the act gives permission to add names or to send the list back? That was the first question.
The second question was: Who made the suggestion that names be added? Was it the Chief Judge or was it the minister? Those were the questions. The minister has not even pretended to respond to those questions but is engaged in irrelevant and personal attacks using old newspaper clippings to read them into the record. That is fine if we were in some other kind of forum, but clearly irrelevancy is a serious issue here. If the minister will not answer, let him simply say that he will not answer. But wasting Estimates time by engaging in personal attacks, irrelevant, is clearly a breach of our rules.
Mr. Mackintosh: On the same point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: On a new point of order?
Mr. Mackintosh: A point on the existing point of order, Mr. Chair, if the minister has negotiated and arranged for a gag order on himself, in other words, if the minister has negotiated with a third party to limit the information he will provide to the public of Manitoba in the Legislative Assembly, let him say so, but not engage in this kind of irrelevancies and abuse of the rules of this House and the time that is being spent in this committee. Let him deal with the public business.
Mr. Chairperson: The minister, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: I want to make it clear, I mean, the suggestion here is that it is me who is wasting time. This is a member who has continually asked the same questions over and over and over again. I have responded. I have given exactly what my answer is, and then he wants to go through it again. I stand by the answers that I have given.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) does not have a point of order.
* (1620)
Mr. Mackintosh: Oh, Mr. Chair, I appeal your ruling.
An Honourable Member: I challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Mackintosh: I challenge your ruling. It is shameful.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns wishes to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour, please respond yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, respond nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested by two members. This section of the Committee of Supply will now proceed to the Chamber for a formal vote. Committee recess.