COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $442,300 on page 95 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): With regard to the meeting between the minister and the Chief Judge on May 4, would the minister tell the committee, other than the Chief Judge and the minister, who else was there at that meeting either for the duration of the meeting or for parts of the meeting?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I have answered the questions in respect of that meeting.
Mr. Mackintosh: I do not recall any questions and answers as to whether there was another person at the meeting for the duration or for part of the meeting. If the minister recalls a particular date when that question was asked and answered, I would appreciate that, but for now I ask the minister that question.
* (1530)
Mr. Toews: I have answered the questions relating to the meeting.
Mr. Mackintosh: So, is the minister saying that he is not answering questions regarding the meeting of May 4 between him and the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: I indicate that I have answered all the questions that I believe are relevant to that issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: As the opposition in this parliamentary democracy that determines what questions are relevant, I ask the minister will he now tell the committee who else was at that meeting? Was Ms. Humphrey there, for example? Was the executive assistant of the minister there, for example? Who else was there, other than the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, this gives me an opportunity to discuss the entire issue of the independence of the judiciary, so I welcome the member's comments in that respect.
Mr. Mackintosh: The very simple question was who was at the meeting. It has nothing to do with the broader issues of independence of the judiciary. At this point, the question is simply who else was there. I ask the minister if he would answer the question posed and not engage in irrelevancies.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. I do not believe the minister has had an opportunity to address the question, so I rule that the honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.
Mr. Toews: One of the very recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with judicial independence was the case of Erichs Tobiass. I am pleased that the member has raised the entire issue about the judiciary because this particular question gives me an opportunity to talk about what I consider a very, very important case and I think one that the member should become familiar with.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have been a member for a number of years now. I have never heard the likes of this kind of contempt for the process. The question of the significance of the independence of the judiciary is not my question. My question was who else was at the meeting.
I ask, through you, Mr. Chair, the minister to answer that, and I ask you, Mr. Chair, if you would now rule that I have a point of order indeed and that there was a very specific question. That is what is posed, and the answer must be relevant to the question. Otherwise, the process is subverted.
Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, I understand that the member may ask any question that he chooses to ask in this process, and I am entitled to answer the question in any way that I see appropriate.
An Honourable Member: No, you are not, not under our rules.
Mr. Toews: Well, now, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) indicates that he does not agree with that position. I believe that there is much latitude that I have in answering this question, and I think it is important that I answer it in the broadest possible way.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, the contempt this minister has for this committee process is incredible. There is nothing in our rules that suggests that a minister can ramble on quoting from newspapers half an hour at a time on irrelevant answers to very specific questions.
Under our rules, if you will consult them through the Clerk--I am sure you have them there before you--the minister is free not to answer a question. He is free to stonewall, but he is not free to ramble on in irrelevancies and use up the committee's valuable time.
Further, this same minister made a very strong point that the Chief Judge was present in the meeting, not in her capacity as Chief Judge but in her capacity as chair of the nominating committee that would nominate suitable persons for the positions advertised. So we are not talking here about some kind of judicial independence because the person at the meeting was not there in the capacity of judge; the person was there in the capacity of chairperson of the committee. So the issue of judicial independence has no relevance whatsoever to the question that has been asked, none.
The minister ought to stop trying to play both sides of the field, on the one hand making a strong point in the House that the Chief Judge, Judith Webster, was present in this meeting not in her capacity as Chief Judge but as chair of the committee. Perhaps the minister now remembers making that point strongly.
He cannot now argue that judicial independence is relevant to the question asked by my honourable friend when he has admitted that judicial independence and the position of the Chief Judge has nothing to do with the meeting in question. She was there as the chair of a nominating committee. Who else was at the meeting? It is a simple question.
The minister can say: I will not answer that question. The minister cannot ramble on under our rules ad nauseam about anything that pops into his head, especially about things that are utterly unconnected to the question, like judicial independence. That is not at issue here. His interference in that process is at issue. The question was: who else was present? The minister should either stonewall or answer the question, but he ought not to take up this committee's time rambling on about irrelevant issues. You, Mr. Chairperson, should rule him out of order, just as you did other members who were speaking out of order in the same way, for example, the honourable member, I believe, for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Mr. Chairperson, this is a very important point, and, as long as you allow this minister to break our rules, you are also not helping the process of this committee.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I just want to qualify this. We are under 1.(b)(1). This does give a wide range as far as questions and answers. I want to remind members that their remarks should be kept relevant to the matter before the committee. I will read, for the benefit of the committee, Rule 70.(2): "Speeches in a Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion." I believe that all committee members wish to keep the discussion and questions flowing along constructively, which we seem to have run into some difficulty with.
I would rule that the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) does have a point of order. I would ask all members of the committee to keep their remarks and comments as relevant as possible, bearing in mind that the scope of the line that we are on, 1.(b)(1), does allow a wide scope with regard to the questions, as well as a wide scope as well as the answers, so I will try to monitor that as the Chair. If I can get the committee's co-operation to bear with me on that, we will get through this.
So the honourable member does have a point of order. I would ask the honourable minister to respond accordingly.
Mr. Toews: In brief, I have indicated that I have answered the question to the extent that I will. In respect of the larger issue that is being raised here, I think it is very important to put that conversation in a particular legal context. I believe it is entirely relevant to this issue, and it is for that reason I raise the Tobiass case. I will discuss the Tobiass case, bearing the Chair's ruling in mine.
What in fact happened in this particular Tobiass case was that various appellants had received notice informing them that a particular minister intended to seek revocation of their Canadian citizenship on the ground that they had obtained it by failing to divulge to Canadian officials details of their involvement in atrocities committed during the Second World War. At the appellant's request, the cases were referred to the federal court, the Trial Division. Numerous procedural disputes then arose.
Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
This case particularly reflects a relationship between a judge and another party that clearly spells out what is involved in judicial independence. For the members opposite in this committee to suggest that they have not suggested that this matter raises issues of judicial independence is simply ludicrous. They have been saying it every day for the past two weeks when we are in the House when they have asked questions, and so the suggestion now, for the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to stand up and say that this issue has nothing to do with judicial independence is simply not correct.
An Honourable Member: It was your point.
Mr. Toews: I agree with that point. I want to make it very clear on the record why I take that position.
So that conversation that occurred with the Chief Judge must be seen in a particular context. I am putting that conversation in a context and contrasting it with the conversation that took place in the Tobiass situation. I think it is important to understand what happened in the Tobiass situation to ensure that the questions that the member asks are seen in the correct light and that my answers are seen in the correct light, and these are very necessary for that particular purpose.
* (1540)
In any event, in the Tobiass case, on December 12, 1995, counsel for one of the appellants, who had been informed that the minister was seeking to revoke their Canadian citizenship, had argued for a whole day on the preliminary motions before the Associate Chief Justice.
In January of 1996, the court advised the parties that--
The Acting Chairperson (Mrs. Render): The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Madam Chairperson. The Chair of this committee, of which you are now the Acting Chair, just a few minutes ago indicated that the point of order that was raised about the relevancy of the minister's comments, or in this case the lack of relevancy, was in order. That means basically that the minister was out of order then, and that by extension means the minister is out of order now.
What this minister is showing is a contempt for this committee, first of all, contempt for the members of this committee, now contempt for the ruling of the Chair. Now if the minister did not agree with the ruling of the Chair, he could have challenged that ruling. It is an option that members of this Legislature have to use on occasion, and certainly he is capable of doing that. But for the minister now to return, you know, to this context of the context of the context, which is nothing more than repeating the same comments--in fact, I have noticed he has been reading from a prepared statement on this for quite some time. I mean, he might just as well read names from the phone book because that is what the minister is doing here.
I find it bizarre that the minister now is, in this case, filibustering his own Estimates and is so concerned to drag this process out and not have to answer questions that he is willing to sit here and show complete contempt for the Chair of this committee. He did not challenge the Chair. The ruling was made. The minister was out of order then; he is out of order now.
I mean, how much further is this minister willing to go to abuse this committee process to avoid having to answer some direct questions? If he does not want to answer the questions, let him say so: I am not going to answer the questions. Put it directly. Let him say why, if he has agreed in this settlement with the Chief Judge. But, Madam Chairperson, the minister is now following exactly the same path before that he followed that got him in trouble with the Chair. That Chair of the committee said he was out of order then. He is out of order again, and I would ask that you do the same as well and ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) either to answer the question, in this case, or stop this rambling irrelevancy in this particular case, which I believe shows contempt for this committee process, the Estimates process.
These are serious issues, and we expect better from the Minister of Justice than to quote at length from the prepared statement that he has, which in and of itself is an abuse of the Estimates process. The only prepared statements that are normally allowed are those--and I am glad that the Chairperson is back and, I assume, going into the Chair, because the Chairperson made a ruling. The minister was out of order. We are asking that the Chair do that again, and we are asking the minister in this particular case to stop showing contempt for the Estimates process in this House and start either answering the questions or put clearly on the record he has no intention of answering the questions. Either option is available to him, but he should not waste the time of the committee.
I say, by the way, just in finishing off, that all he is doing is extending Estimates discussion. I say this to the minister and members opposite: every minute that this minister wastes in the time of this committee will be added afterwards on concurrence. If he thinks he is going to filibuster and eat up the Estimates time by doing this, he is dead wrong. We are going to be sitting here dealing with the same kinds of items in concurrence. I say to the minister: why does he not just follow the rules of this committee? Why does he not show some respect for this committee and answer the questions and not waste the time of this committee with, once again, this irrelevant debate? Why does he not listen to his own Chairperson of this committee and understand he is out of order again? In fact, he has been out of order now for more than a week. This is getting ridiculous. We demand that this minister show some respect for the processes of this Legislature.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): On the same point of order, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Chairperson, I think when the Chair of the committee ruled previously that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) may have been out of order, it may have been because he did not preface his comments before speaking the last time in the way that he prefaced them this time. I listened very carefully to what he said, and he talked about the relevance of this issue to the matter of the question that had been raised.
Now I know that my honourable friend, the member for Thompson--[interjection] I would prefer that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) did not interrupt me rudely when I am trying to make my point.
I know that from time to time points of order are raised, not only in committee but in the House. I have been here for 12 years, and I know that it has happened on both sides of the House where someone stands up and asks, when someone is speaking to a bill or speaking to any issue in the House, someone on the opposite side of the House stands up and calls a point of order and asks that they be called to order and address the issue at hand. I know, and I have seen my honourable friend from Thompson--he seems to be one of the people that is best able to manipulate that process by prefacing his comments on how they relate to the legislation and then going on on whatever path he determines that he might go.
So, you know, Mr. Chairperson, I think that I would ask you to review Hansard when Hansard comes out and maybe make a determination, because I heard very clearly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) talk about how his response was relevant to the question that was asked, and I believe as a result of that he has the opportunity to put his thoughts on the record.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I will take this under advisement. I will review Hansard.
I would remind all honourable members that they should remain relevant to the issues, the questions and the answers that are being posed and answered.
I will remind all honourable members again that this is not Question Period. We are on line 4.1.(b)(1) which offers a lot of latitude. Section 71, subsection 2 specifically states that questions and answers must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion, and I think that is as clear as we can get, so I would ask the co-operation of the committee and all honourable members of the committee.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would like to ask the minister a question then. Were any other persons present during part or all of the meeting between the Chief Judge and the minister?
Mr. Toews: On a point of order, I was in the middle of giving my answer when the--[interjection]
* (1550)
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, that is my mistake. I did not realize the honourable minister was dealing with the question, or to the answer. The honourable minister may continue. I did not rule that this was a point of order. I ruled that I was going to take this under advisement, and I will do that, and I remind all honourable members that Section 72.(2) does reference relevancy, so the honourable minister to continue with your response.
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairperson, again, I think it is very important to put this particular conversation into a context. If members opposite do not want me to do that, then I have made my position very clear on the record, and I have stated that I have answered those questions to the extent that I am prepared to.
Now, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) said that was my right to do so, and I would indicate then that I think it is important to place this conversation into a particular context. The member for Thompson does not want me to do that, so then I can say that the answers that I have given to date are, in my opinion, sufficient to address this issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister taking the position that he will not answer questions about the meeting between the minister and the Chief Judge of May 4?
Mr. Toews: No, I am not.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister in any way constrained by an agreement that he entered into or that he agreed to or encouraged with a third party outside of this Legislature, specifically the Chief Judge, that he believes governs what information--what he can speak about in this committee in terms of the meeting with the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: All I can indicate to the member is that I have answered the questions in the House, I have answered them here in the committee, and I am prepared to deal with the Estimates in the Department of Justice.
The member is simply proceeding on a fishing trip. I do not want to help him on this particular fishing trip, and so I have indicated the manner in which I am prepared to answer that question. If he does not believe that it is relevant and does not want the benefit of that explanation, then I cannot help him. So I have indicated that to the extent that I have answered the questions, that is the extent I will answer those questions.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, given that the minister has not to any extent answered any question about who was at the meeting in addition to himself and the Chief Judge, I ask the minister again to tell this committee was there another person present at any time during the course of that meeting, and if he is not going to answer that question, why specifically is he not answering that question?
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, I have indicated my answer and I do not see how this is relevant to the Estimates of the Department of Justice, and therefore I am prepared to leave it at that.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is an amazing statement to think that something like this was not relevant to the Estimates. The minister is being paid out of the Estimates, the Chief Judge is being paid out of the Estimates of the Department of Justice, and indeed the policy of the department is under scrutiny in the Estimates, so it is an absolute contempt to hear the minister talk like he is just talking.
I ask the minister then, if he refuses to answer the question as to who was present or were there any other persons present in the meeting of May 4 with the Chief Judge, I ask him this question. He said that he had received a sealed list at the meeting with the Chief Judge. He then initiated a discussion about a bilingual candidate. What did the minister initiate the conversation by saying? Did he ask who was listed in the sealed envelope, or did he ask of the bilingual qualifications of those in the sealed envelope?
Mr. Toews: I have answered that question extensively in the House and in the committee process.
Mr. Mackintosh: Of course, the minister is not telling the truth in that regard. He knows well that that question was never asked nor is it being answered now--or has answered in the past.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Chairman, I realize that the issues being discussed here today and in previous sittings of this branch of the committee have brought about certain emotional aspects in the participants in the discussion, but I would prevail on the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) not to breach the parliamentary rules that are pretty clear with respect to the types of comments that he has just made and maybe search his soul a little bit.
By all means, let us have all the debate that honourable members feel is necessary to have, but it would be appreciated if we did not transgress the rules of parliamentary debate.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood, on the same point of order.
Mr. Sale: The same point of order, Mr. Chairperson.
The member for St. Johns is absolutely accurate in his comment in this regard, Mr. Chairperson. If you will search Hansard, you will find that the questions asked by my honourable friend were not ever asked in the House. They were not asked until this committee sat, and they have not been answered by the minister in question. So, when the minister asserts that he has answered these questions in the House, he simply is a stranger to the truth, to say the least, because these questions were not asked, so he could not have answered them.
So I ask you to take the point of order raised by the honourable House leader of the government under advisement and to check Hansard, and to ascertain whether indeed the minister spoke the truth when he said that these questions had been asked and answered in the House. I think it is a very important question, and I hope that you will take it under advisement.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: On the same point of order. Mr. Chair, I have answered these questions in a number of proceedings in the House in Question Period over a number of Question Periods, and I would also invite the Chair to search the record of Hansard. The issue has been raised, and I have indicated the extent to which I will answer those questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I do not think it is necessary for me to review Hansard at this time. I appreciate the advice of all honourable members.
"Not telling the truth" has been ruled unparliamentary by several Chair people and Speakers of the House, and I would ask that the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) withdraw that remark "not telling the truth."
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Chair.
An Honourable Member: It is on both lists.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Mackintosh: What was the comment that I made?
Mr. Chairperson: "Not telling the truth." That has been ruled unparliamentary, and I would ask the honourable member for St. Johns to withdraw.
The honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) does have a point of order.
Mr. Mackintosh: He never asked anybody to withdraw anything.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been ruled unparliamentary. The honourable thing for a member to do when there is something that is unparliamentary, and I have ruled that the honourable Minister of Environment does have a point of order, and I ask the honourable member for St. Johns to withdraw the remark "not telling the truth."
Mr. Ashton: I do not know if I am supposed to say this, but I did step out of the room for about two minutes.
Mr. Chairperson, first of all, was the point of order that was raised by the government House leader calling for the withdrawal of certain words? Second of all, are you ruling that "not telling the truth" is unparliamentary, because it is a term that appears on both lists? I think much of this depends on what the government House leader had said.
We could challenge your ruling, but I wanted to get some clarification of what the government House leader was saying.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Environment, on the same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: If it is of any use to the committee or yourself, Mr. Chairman, and for clarification, I was really calling attention at the moment to words that I thought in the context that I heard were unparliamentary, and it is not altogether clear. I know that the words "not telling the truth" can, in some circumstances, be parliamentary. I realize that.
I guess, rather than demand that something be withdrawn on an immediate basis, it might be appropriate that the words be reviewed. But the way the words were spoken, I thought I detected the kind of context that would be unparliamentary, and that is just my opinion. I could be wrong about that. Maybe a review of the words in the written word would be an appropriate way for you to deal with it, Mr. Chairman, but that is entirely up to you.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. In the interests of proceeding with this, I will take this under advisement and bring back a decision to the committee.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, again, I ask the minister, it is important that we know the details of the discussion between himself and the Chief Judge. The questions that we have asked are not questions that have been asked in the House and certainly not answers that have been given in the House. I know different answers have been given in the House from time to time; I think three different versions on similar questions. This is an important time for the minister now to clarify what took place.
This matter is not going away. We are here to get answers to these questions, and the session will not go away until these issues are dealt with. The other parts of the Estimates for Justice can wait. We have time in concurrence without time limitations and so be it.
But again, we ask the minister: Is he constrained or does he feel constrained by an agreement that he has entered into with anyone outside of this Legislature that is calling on him not to, or that he is calling on himself not to, answer questions?
Mr. Toews: Well, I disagree with the interpretation that the member for St. Johns has put on my answers, and my answers speak for themselves.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister tell the committee then, when the minister raised the issue of bilingual capacity in respect of the people suggested by the nominating committee, did the minister suggest different options as to how bilingual capacity that that issue can be addressed?
Mr. Toews: That specific issue was discussed in the House in Question Period, and I stay by my answers.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister knows it was not specifically addressed. We want to know what other options were raised. Is the minister saying that the only option that was raised was to send the list back, in other words, to negotiate the appointment list?
Mr. Toews: Well, I have indicated, Mr. Chairperson, the same question is being asked over and over again. I have indicated my position on this issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to follow up with a question asked by my colleague for Crescentwood. This question has not been specifically asked, and it is important that it be answered. Who, at the meeting, and so far we do not know who all was at the meeting, but who suggested that the list go back to the nominating committee? Between the minister and the Chief Judge, was it the minister or was it the Chief Judge? That is a critical question, and we deserve an answer.
Mr. Toews: The sequence of those events were discussed in my answers at Question Period.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have a question, if the minister will not answer that, flowing from the ministerial statement that he provided to the House last week. In there the statement says: I have been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge on the events of the last several weeks relating to the judicial appointment process. I ask the minister to describe what the recollections of the Chief Judge were that he was made aware of.
Mr. Toews: Well, if the member continues reading that statement, it indicates that the Chief Judge's recollections were consistent with my own. I have indicated my position on my answers given to me or the questions given to me at Question Period.
Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister what recollections of the Chief Judge was he made aware of specifically.
Mr. Toews: And I have given my answers to that.
Mr. Mackintosh: The ministerial statement, of course, does not talk about the Chief Judge's recollections. I am specifically referring to this one paragraph. I want to know what recollections the Chief Judge had of the events that the minister became aware of.
Mr. Toews: Well, I have given my answer.
Mr. Mackintosh: The minister has not answered.
Mr. Sale: In the St. Boniface papers, Mr. Joubert answered questions very directly and very openly about the options open to a minister who was unhappy with the lack of bilingual capacity on the bench. Mr. Joubert indicated in French that the correct option was to have a new Order-in-Council and a new selection process in order to achieve the necessary or the required or desired number of people on the bench, who are capable of conducting trials entirely in French.
Does the minister agree with Mr. Joubert that the correct procedure was to hold a new competition with proper advertisements and proper criteria, so that the nominating committee would have a clean slate to start from and would know what was expected of it? Was Mr. Joubert correct that that was the proper procedure?
Mr. Toews: Without commenting on what Mr. Joubert's opinion is, there were two issues that were important to me. I have answered those in the House. Number one, whether the legislation permitted certain courses of conduct, and, secondly, that whatever course of conduct was adopted, be adopted by the committee. The consent of the committee was absolutely essential to the process.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister apparently now will not even answer questions about the correct course of action to follow under the act. I ask him again: Mr. Joubert, who is not a judicial lightweight, made a comment to the press forthrightly saying the correct course of action, the only course of action that was correct was to hold a new competition. There were no other options in Mr. Joubert's opinion. Does the minister concur with Mr. Joubert's opinion?
Mr. Toews: I concur with Mr. Joubert's opinion to the extent that he was a committee member who made a particular decision, and I respect the opinion of the committee.
Mr. Sale: Could the minister point to the section in the act which gives any other option than the option put forward by Mr. Joubert?
Mr. Toews: I believe I have answered that question to the extent that I should or can.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, this is incredible. We have a minister responsible for the administration of an act, who cannot point to a section of that act for which he has full responsibility that would allow the course of events to take place that did take place. We have a respected member of the committee and an officer of the court, Mr. Joubert, who says the correct course of action was a new competition with proper advertisements, proper screening, proper selection, proper nomination, a new round of selection.
The minister indicates that he concurs with Mr. Joubert's opinion in regard to the opinion Mr. Joubert expressed in committee. The minister is unable or unwilling to point to a section in the act which would allow for the course of conduct which the minister and/or the Chief Judge sought to undertake.
Now, Mr. Chairperson, this is a pretty clear issue. We have an act which permits certain things to happen. The act does not permit what indeed happened. There is no permission in the act for the adding of names to a list once the list is sent to the minister. There is no provision for refusing a list and sending it back. There is no provision for additional nominations to come forward after the list has been sealed and completed and forwarded. The minister nods his agreement, and yet--
Mr. Toews: I have not nodded my agreement to the statements made.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, thank you. I ask the minister again: can he point to any section of the act or regulations that allowed either he or the Chief Judge or some third party unnamed that he will not speak about to go back to the committee and ask them to do something to a nominations list that they had already put forward? Can he help the committee understand the authority by which this course of action took place?
* (1610)
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, I have been over this ground. I have indicated what my position was. There were two issues that for me were of primary importance. Number one, did the legislation allow for that and, secondly, did the committee consent? The committee did not consent to any other process than the process that in fact was ultimately agreed upon. And so, under the legislation, I agreed with what the committee has done. I respect the opinion of the committee.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister has now confirmed that the legislation did not permit what happened to take place. The minister has confirmed that he and the Chief Judge--he or the Chief Judge or some third party--directed that the Chief Judge go back to the committee and request an extrajudicial procedure, a procedure not anticipated or allowed under the act, and that the committee turned that down.
So, what is at question in this committee is: who undertook that initiative? Clearly the Chief Judge undertook to take back the request, but was the Chief Judge ordered to do so or did the Chief Judge agree or, thirdly, did the Chief Judge propose to do so? Whose solution was this? Was it the Chief Judge's solution? Was it the minister's solution? Was it a solution agreed to by both parties?
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, again this raises the issue that I have raised in prior occasions. This member has absolutely no interest in finding out what the facts are. He simply wants to distort the meaning of matters without being constructive.
I can only refer him again to the articles that have been published about him and his notorious misuse of facts--he is well known for that--and I have indicated that the issue is, as far as I was concerned, whether the legislation did it, did allow for it, and, secondly, whether the committee approved.
What the member seems to forget is that nothing in respect to that process could be done without the consent of the committee. So if the committee does not agree, it is quite irrelevant what my opinion is or what anybody else's opinion is on that particular issue. So I have indicated very clearly the sequence of the events. I stand by the sequence of those events, and I would indicate that in fact I respect the opinion of the committee and the ultimate decision that they arrived at.
Mr. Sale: The consent of the committee in this regard is quite irrelevant because, in the act, there is no ability of the committee to consent or not. Who suggested--
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me a good half hour, maybe 45 minutes, ago the member, a couple of the members on the opposite side suggested that if the minister were not going to answer a question, the minister might state that, with the implication that whatever the minister said, if the minister said, I have answered this as I am going to, that the questions on that particular subject would stop and they would move on and start getting down to the business of asking questions pertaining to the Justice department.
Now, the members opposite cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. I believe it was the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who suggested that if the minister was not going to answer the question, then perhaps he should say so. As I say, that to me implies that that is the end of that particular paragraph, so to speak. Now the minister has stated what he is prepared to answer, how he is prepared to answer it, but the members opposite are not prepared to go along with what they have suggested.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat here and I have listened to the members opposite just repeat and repeat and repeat. The minister has tried to respond to the members opposite, and they do not like his response.
I would suggest that you call them to order and ask them not to give suggestions if they are not going to abide by their own suggestions.
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I am quite amazed by the comments from the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). I mean, we cannot force the minister to answer questions. It is obvious he does not want to answer questions, but we cannot force him, and I said that on the record. That does not mean that he has freedom to go and filibuster the committee. I would also suggest that he runs very close to showing contempt for the committee by repeatedly failing to answer those questions. But, for us, now, to take the suggestion from a government member that we should just give up on asking questions because this minister does not want to answer the questions is incredible. The time in this Estimates committee is to deal with Justice. These issues are directly related to Justice, and I suggest to the member for St. Vital that we in the opposition will not allow the government, in this particular case, to dictate what kinds of questions we are going to ask.
In fact, I would say to the member for St. Vital, we are going to continue to ask questions, and we are not going to stop asking those questions. We are not going to be stopped by the behaviour of this minister in this committee. We think these are serious issues.
So I suggest, Mr. Chairperson, not only does the member not have a point of order, I would suggest that she re-examine the role in this committee of government in opposition. Our role is to try and get answers from this minister. We have been sitting here close to a week. We have been getting very few, if any, answers. We will continue to answer those questions. Not only is that not against the rules, that is our obligation as an opposition.
I say to the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) that if and when she has the opportunity to sit in opposition--and, by the way, I remind people that we are in a democratic process. Perhaps she is practising for opposition. If she is lucky enough to have the luxury of being in opposition, she would do the same thing too.
I look at the government House leader--he has done the same thing too--and I would remind him of some of his comments. So, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the member for St. Vital had a point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) does not have a point of order.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the questions that we are asking go to the very heart of the issue that has been before us and will continue to be before us until we get some forthright answers from this minister.
Mr. Joubert has indicated that there was only one course of action permissible under the act. The minister has at least concurred in part with that, that he agrees with Mr. Joubert's opinion and the opinion expressed by the committee that they were not prepared to reopen the nominating procedure. The question remains: is the minister telling this committee, then, that it was the Chief Judge who said: I will take the matter back to the committee and see if they will agree to add names? Is that where the suggestion came from?
Mr. Toews: Well, you know, Mr. Chair, we can go through Hansard and specifically look at that question. That question has been asked of me in Question Period. I gave my answer, and I stand by that answer.
Mr. Mackintosh: I want to move ahead just for a moment to the further negotiations with the Chief Judge that the minister engaged in, and those negotiations led to the minister making a statement in the Legislature. I want to ask the minister: in light of his refusal to answer questions in this committee relating to the meetings with the Chief Judge, what did the minister agree to with the Chief Judge following the negotiations that the respective counsel were engaged in that are not listed or are not set out in his ministerial statement to the House of last week?
Mr. Toews: The statement reflects my agreement with the Chief Judge and my understanding and her understanding of the events.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, if that is true, why did the minister tell the Legislature that there was also an understanding or an agreement that the Chief Judge would not comment further as a result of the discussions? That was not something that was set out in the ministerial statement. What other items of agreement were agreed to by the minister and the Chief Judge?
Mr. Toews: Point of order. Well, I would like to know what specific answer the member is referring to and if he could show me that answer in Hansard where I indicated that, and then I can perhaps give him an answer because I do not think he is accurately indicating my answers on the record.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I asked the minister what all was agreed to as a result of the negotiations in the backroom between himself and the Chief Judge, whether through counsel or otherwise, that is not set out in the ministerial statement.
* (1620)
Mr. Toews: I have provided my answer for that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Since the minister refuses to answer that question, I ask him now: when he raised the issue of bilingual capacity in respect of the names proposed by the nominating committee, what was the explanation provided by the Chief Judge, to the minister's recollection, as to why there was not a bilingual person in the sealed envelope?
Mr. Toews: I have provided my answers in respect to the conversation I have had with the Chief Judge.
Mr. Mackintosh: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Chair.
I have in this Legislature a role that is prescribed in the unwritten constitution and practices and procedures of this Assembly, as do other members of the opposition, as does the minister, and the fundamental role in terms of the Estimates process is to ensure accountability of the minister for actions taken by the minister personally and in his role as the head of the Department of Justice. Accountability can only be ensured through questions and answers, and accountability can only be ensured by a minister who is indeed accountable to the Legislature. When a third party intervenes and thwarts that accountability to the Legislature, the system cannot work, and the foundation on which the official opposition is to conduct its work is thwarted.
It appears obvious from the minister's answers to my questions that the minister has either taken it upon himself or has entered into an agreement with a third party, namely, the Chief Judge, not to answer questions and therefore not be accountable to the public of Manitoba through the members of the Legislature. It is our charge that this minister has agreed with the Chief Judge that he would make no further comments on the discussions that took place at the meeting with the Chief Judge on May 4, and further, would not make further comment relating to the negotiation process that led to his ministerial statement in the Legislature.
This committee has to do a job, and it can only do the job if the minister has respect for the process, rather than the contempt he is demonstrating. It is untenable that the minister will not answer these questions. He does not appear to understand how he has compromised not just his position and his office but that of the Chief Judge. I do not know if the Chief Judge understands how seriously compromised she as an individual and her office now are.
The minister has been putting the interests of power of the Conservative Party ahead of the repute of the justice system and the confidence that Manitobans must have in it, because right now we are looking at a system whereby the Chief Judge of Manitoba is making a back-room deal with a politician for the sake of a political party, a Chief Judge making a deal with a politician to protect a politician's rear end and protect the Conservative Party.
I do not think the minister understands the anger and dismay, particularly in the legal community, for one, people who have devoted their lives to buttressing and shoring up the justice system and making sure that people know when they have disputes or when their safety is threatened, their loved ones injured, there is a place to go that they can trust will answer their needs, and the minister knows darn well the effects of a loss of confidence in the judicial system and the justice system generally.
The minister can repair this damage, and he can repair it by providing answers to the questions that we pose, because it is our duty to ensure confidence in the justice system, not to the extent that it is the minister's, but it is our responsibility to protect that system within our prescribed role in the legislative process. He cannot stop us from doing that. He is stopping us from doing that by this agreement that we are charging he has with the Chief Judge to be silent on these critical matters of public importance.
I, therefore, move that the committee censure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) for refusing to answer questions related to meetings held between representatives of and the Chief Judge and the Minister of Justice.
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has raised a question of privilege. In Parliament, one of the requirements is that of timeliness, and that is something I would leave to you, Mr. Chairman, to examine. The other requirement is that there be some prima facie case raised to allow a motion to be taken forward.
The honourable member for St. Johns has spoken about the relationship which exists between the Chief Judge and the Attorney General of this province, and I participate in this question of privilege as House leader for the government. However, I had some experience in dealings with the Provincial Judge of Manitoba when I was Attorney General. I think that what we have heard from the honourable member for St. Johns, disguised as a question of privilege directed against our Minister of Justice, was an unparalleled and unprecedented attack on an individual member of the judiciary in Manitoba.
The honourable member for St. Johns, I believe, chooses his words fairly carefully and knows exactly what I am talking about in his efforts to raise points about this. He has attempted to bait the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba in an extremely unseemly way. I have been around Manitoba for many years and I have not seen anything like this since Joe Borowski and his dealings with I think it was Judge Manwaring up in the Dauphin area. I have not seen this kind of abuse of the judiciary by a politician since the days of Joe Borowski.
* (1630)
Mr. Chairman, disguised as a question of privilege, we have cheap shots being fired by the honourable member for St. Johns. This is no way resembles anything approaching a question of privilege. This is not a courtroom. Maybe the honourable member wishes it was, but this is not a court room. This is a committee of the Legislature where accountability is something that is the result of questions asked and answers given. The real test of accountability is what the people think about it, not what the honourable member for St. Johns thinks about it.
So, I think this is an appalling and really quite despicable attempt by the honourable member for St. Johns to do in this place to a Chief Judge what cannot be really done anywhere else. The fact that judges in our system rarely speak publicly except through their decisions makes the shot even cheaper still, and anybody who thinks a politician, including an Attorney General, could in some way muzzle a member of the judiciary is an extremely naive person. These people do not get appointments to the bench by being as unsophisticated as the honourable member for St. Johns and his question of privilege and in his questioning suggests the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Manitoba must be.
So the relationship between a Chief Judge and an Attorney General is one that we hope the honourable member for St. Johns would never participate in and in my view never would happen, but there is an administration job to be done in any jurisdiction, and the Attorney General is the person designated by statute to conduct the business of the province with the judiciary. The honourable Attorney General is quite capable of answering specific questions for himself, but simply by responding to the questions in a way which is unsatisfactory to the honourable member for St. Johns by no means suggests unsatisfactory to the people of Manitoba but in any event has nothing whatever to do with any grounds for a question of privilege.
Mr. Chairperson: I am just going to intercede here for the benefit of the committee. The member for St. Johns has raised a matter of privilege. I must inform the committee that in accordance with Beauchesne Citation 107, it has no power to deal with a matter of privilege. Such matters can only be dealt with by the House itself on receiving a report from the committee. Therefore, I am prepared to entertain a motion to report the alleged matter of privilege to the House.
Mr. Ashton: You are quite correct. It is reported to the House and I think by the addition of those words at the end we can accomplish that. I wish to add some comments as well.
Mr. Mackintosh: I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the alleged matter of privilege be reported to the House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chairperson: The motion is debatable.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I want to deal with some of the comments made by the government House leader. I want to say it is ironic that one of the terms he used was abuse of the judiciary. Well, indeed, that is exactly what is at root in this whole matter, abuse of the judiciary. We believe that this Minister of Justice abused his position in a very important matter, in this case matters related to the appointment to the judiciary. That is exactly the root of the problem. We also believe that this matter is a matter of privilege, because the minister has gone beyond just not answering questions. We have seen the unprecedented situation in this House where the minister has, at his initiative, developed what in the courtroom analogy--because I think the minister would understand this too--has come up with an out-of-court settlement--and I use that term here with conditions attached to it--whereby this minister felt that he could put an end to this whole controversy by standing up in the House saying: well, I speak for me and I speak for the Chief Judge, and this is my recollection and this is hers.
The matter is done with. Then afterwards, I think we have seen by the questioning in this past week, the minister not only has confirmed essentially the Chief Judge will make no further statements, but that he will make no statements. In fact this minister, by way of agreement with the Chief Judge, has agreed not to make statements of any further kind related to this matter other than what is in that statement, and that is reflected in his comments in the House.
That is unprecedented. That is showing complete absolute contempt for this Legislature. I say to the government House leader that he fundamentally misunderstands the role of this Legislature and of Parliament if he suggests this is not a court. There is the law of Parliament. There are elements of our processes that reflect that.
In fact we have a procedure whereby we can call witnesses, call people to the bar to deal with matters of privilege. That is part of any Parliament. That is one of the fundamental roles of any Parliament. Mr. Chairperson, that is also the route of privilege. Privilege deals with the matter of contempt. It deals with the violation of the ability of members of the Legislature to be able to perform their duties, and it does so in a way that directly reflects judicial process. We essentially make a motion a matter of privilege and, at that point in time, it is a question of whether it is a prima facie case.
I say to the government House leader: this is raising contempt of the Legislature to a new level. I point to recent precedents in the House of Commons, where the Speaker of the House has made, I think, a very significant ruling, finding it was a matter of privilege in the House just a matter of weeks ago that a government minister refused to bring a matter before the Parliament, made an announcement outside of the House, and did not make that announcement in the House.
Mr. Chairperson, I think that is a matter that may come up again in this House because this government routinely ignores what has been a common courtesy, and I think it has shown contempt of that kind. We now very rarely see statements made in the House, but now we have a Speaker of the House of Commons ruling that is a matter of privilege. We have practised the last number of years--perhaps that is somewhat different here--but I ask you consider this: the precedent we would set in this particular case if we now allow ministers to say, oh, sorry, I cannot say anything; I have agreed with somebody outside of the Legislature--cannot say a word. I say to the minister and I say to this government, whatever agreement the minister, through his lawyer, one Mr. Olson, I believe, had with the lawyer responsible I guess working on behalf of the Chief Judge, is null and void, it means nothing in this House. It means nothing whatsoever. He can make whatever arrangements he wants outside of this Legislature. He can tape his mouth shut before he comes in to this committee, but it does not mean he has the right to show contempt for members of this committee and the legislative process.
You cannot just turn it around and say: hey, I agreed I am not going to speak. You cannot do that and expect members of the opposition and, more importantly, members of the public to sit back and say: nothing we can do. I want to stress what I said earlier--because I raised this on a point of order, because we cannot compel the minister to answer. This is not the Spanish Inquisition. We can do nothing more than keep asking the questions, but what we can do is expect that the minister not show contempt for the Legislature, which he has been doing repeatedly; first, by not giving answers to many questions that were asked; second of all, by bringing that ridiculous statement--and I put on the record that statement was ridiculous.
The Chief Judge shares my recollection that was outlined in Question Period. Of course, he only picked one day in Question Period. I say to the Minister of Justice and I say it to the government House leader: do they not realize what they have done? I mean, are we going to do this on a routine basis?
I find it interesting, you know the minister talking about judicial independence. In this case we are talking about the Chief Judge in her capacity as a member of the committee looking at judges. We have made that very clear, that the minister's comments are irrelevant. But we now have the minister standing up and saying: I am not going to say anything more than the fact that through my lawyer and through her lawyer I now get to speak for her based on this Question Period.
We now have this minister dragging the Chief Judge in, given comment on Question Period--Question Period--at his initiative, and he and the government turn around and wonder why we have concerns about what is happening? I say this Minister of Justice has compounded a very bad situation into a fundamentally worse situation by trying to drag the Chief Judge in. This government House leader now turns around and has objections for us asking about this process now for close to a week? And the member for St. Johns turning around and suggesting that indeed if this minister--and I remind the government House leader, it was this minister who decided to bring the Chief Judge into this process by doing what? By going at his initiative, starting this process, this "out-of-court settlement." I put that in quotation marks because it is very equivalent to what happens all the time. He started that process.
* (1640)
What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit back and accept this statement that the minister brought in as being the end result? I would suggest not, Mr Chairperson. This minister raised a thousand times more questions by bringing the statement than he answered by doing it. We still do not know the full process that occurred here. I said when we first debated in this committee: what did the minister do when he contacted Mr. Olson, and I assume he did? Did he have direction to Mr. Olson? By the way, did he hire Mr. Olson? If so, who paid for the bill or was this just some favour for past connections? Did he ask if there were other considerations, to use a good legal term in this particular case? What then happened? What did the minister's lawyer do? Phone the Chief Judge's office, and, say: I would like to meet with someone, a representative on your behalf? What was the direction of the minister to the lawyer: get me out of this bind? Come up with some agreement, so I do not have to answer questions in the House on this.
What kind of process could you start here where you know you are going to get a lawyer to contact someone who is directly responsible representing the Chief Judge?
An Honourable Member: Get me out of Estimates.
Mr. Ashton: You know, get me out of Estimates. Was this part of the directions? I do not want to keep answering those questions, but I am sure if I have the Chief Judge's agreement here, that overrides anything else. I mean this becomes an absurdity, Mr. Chairperson. The minister's actions complicate his culpability in this matter far more than even the initial incident, and the initial incident, by the way, is very clear. It is very clear that this minister attempted to use the process, attempted to add a requirement which would only fit that of one person who had been interviewed, a person who had political connections with the party in government.
This minister knew that. He got his fingers caught in the cookie jar. He then went and got the Chief Judge to come in and say what? If you read the statement, what the Chief Judge essentially says is that the Chief Judge came out of the meeting with the minister thinking that exactly what we have said all the way along is what happened. There was no misunderstanding in the perception of the Chief Judge coming out of there. So what the minister was trying to do is get the Chief Judge to do what? To back up some fabricated statement that the minister has put together, constructed, that tries to somehow say, well, maybe I said certain things and maybe the Chief Judge understood it this way, but you know, I did not really mean it that way.
Mr. Chairperson, we all know what the minister meant. We know what was the result of that meeting with the Chief Judge, because the Chief Judge then talked to other members of the committee, and they have confirmed exactly what the impression of the Chief Judge was at the initial meeting. So for the minister then to turn around and come up with an agreement--I mean this is the root problem with this--that he will speak for the Chief Judge and then they will no longer answer any more questions on that, that shows the ultimate in contempt.
This is not a simple case of the minister not having to answer questions in Question Period. It is not even a simple case of the minister being obstructionist, which he has been in this committee, it goes far beyond that. I ask you to think about this for a moment, because the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) I thought makes our point without realizing it. He turns around and says, well, it is only up to public opinion here.
I ask the government House leader to reflect on what he is saying, that a minister of the Crown does not have to answer questions. A minister of the Crown could contact the Chief Judge. A minister of the Crown can then speak for the Chief Judge in the Legislature about a matter related to Question Period. Who has politicized the Chief Judge in this process? It is the minister. I cannot think of how this minister, who likes to lecture members of the opposition on propriety, can see any way, shape or form in which it is proper for him to get up and quote in a general term the Chief Judge commenting on a Question Period of the Manitoba Legislature. He has involved the Chief Judge, I believe, in the most political part of our process, Question Period. He has done it selectively. He has done it through an odious agreement whereby he gets to speak for himself and the Chief Judge.
Members opposite wonder why we are frustrated as an opposition and have been continuing to try and get this minister to answer questions and to be responsible to the Legislature for well over a week now. Do they not understand the severity of this? Now this would not have happened if the minister had not tried to interfere in the process in the first place. But you know, we would not have spent the last week plus if the minister had not then compounded it by trying to do anything possible to stop anybody pointing the finger in his direction as being responsible for this matter.
The appropriate thing for this minister to have done, I believe initially, would have been to resign, call an independent inquiry. If he did nothing wrong, the independent inquiry would have shown that to be the case. A clear precedent for that, Ontario is in that process right now with the Solicitor General, Mr. Runciman. It was not good enough for the minister. He desperately, understanding that perhaps in the Filmon cabinet, unless you get moved out in a shuffle, you pretty well have job security for life. I mean I do not know what it would take to have someone kicked out of the Filmon cabinet.
It must be frustrating for some of the backbenchers, because I am sure some of the backbenchers must sit there and say, well, there goes another minister messing up again. But you do not have to worry about getting the call if you are a backbencher in this government. You can mess up all you want, but they have 10 rules on ministers in trouble. Number one is no one resigns; number two is no one resigns. It goes down, and it is the same response 10 times. They will not even do what other provinces do, bring in an independent investigation. You know, people have been cleared. In fact, their former federal leader was out of cabinet for a period of time. Jean Charest was forced to resign, in fact, a very similar parallel to this situation, although, I would say, less complicated.
But I ask, Mr. Chairperson, members of the government what they feel they are accomplishing by this, by the minister now, I believe, the minister, not the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), the minister is the one who brought the Chief Judge directly into this debate by speaking for the Chief Judge. Now I want to suggest that perhaps the minister was afraid that the Chief Judge might just have spoken directly to the public. Would that not have been interesting if the Chief Judge had spoken directly to the public and that is why I think you see this whole construction of this agreement? The reason is if the Chief Judge had gone to the public, the Chief Judge, I believe, would have confirmed essentially what the other members of the selection panel have reported, would have said quite directly that the minister clearly left the impression with the Chief Judge of his attempt to participate directly, to rig the process.
The minister was afraid that he would be faced not only with the president of the Law Society and the president of the Bar Association who made public comments reporting on what was reported back to them as members of the committee but that he would have the Chief Judge who was part of the meeting saying exactly what had been reported back to the other members. That was what he was afraid of.
So what he did is he came up with this odious statement. He then tied the Chief Judge into commenting on Question Period. He has gone and tied the Chief Judge now into agreeing not to make any further statements, and now he turns around and says, ah, my hands are tied; by agreement with the Chief Judge, I cannot say anything either.
That has been the purpose of this one-week filibuster. We see the minister not wanting to answer questions based on this agreement.
Mr. Chairperson, I will say this on the record, that that agreement with the Chief Judge means nothing. It means nothing to anyone in this House who is concerned about proper process. It means nothing to any member of the public who wants to know what really went on in that case. I say to the minister that what he has done by his action, very much so, I believe, is hurt his credibility as Minister of Justice far more than the original incident ever had or would have.
I want to state, Mr. Chairperson, that this issue was raised to me this weekend by constituents, including a number of lawyers, including people who are saying, you know, we know what is wrong with this. The minister tried to rig the system, tried to use it, and when his fingers were caught in the cookie jar, instead of saying, look, I got caught, I made a mistake, I was wrong, he then turned around and essentially tried to say, well, it may look like a cookie jar, that may look like my hand, but I can speak for not only me but the other person who was there and tell you, in context, maybe it was not my hand, and if it was my hand, maybe it was not a cookie jar.
* (1650)
You know, I have attended a number of court cases, and I have seen some leaps of logic in my time. I realize--and this is no offence to lawyers by the way. If you hire a lawyer, you want someone who is going to go and give you a good defence, but I have seen these kinds of constructed legal arguments where it starts off, well, you have someone accused of an assault or some crime, right. So the arguments start running from, well, first of all, was it really me there, and was it really him that was hit? Well, if it was me and if it was him, was he really hit? Well, if it was me and it was him and he was really hit--you know, you start running through all these other layers of defence. That is what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) wants to do in this case.
He seems to think that he is in some civil case or even a criminal case, and the lawyers are sitting down and it is kind of like, well, you know, this does not have to go to court. It does not have to go public in this case. It does not have to continue to be raised in the Legislature. Hey, listen, out-of-court settlement; let us get this resolved. What is the No. 1 element of a lot of these out-of-court settlements, that people not comment on the matter any further. Hmm. I think the minister's legal training has probably tripped him up on this one here. He thought this was just like any other court case, civil or criminal. Just come to an agreement; get your lawyers to do the dirty work. It is done; it is over. When he came back in the House, it was sort of, you know, he put in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I. He really thought he had it resolved. You know, hey, look, I speak not only for me, I speak for the Chief Judge--did he expect anyone to accept the veracity of that statement?
I, by the way, put this on the record. I do not believe his statement. I do not see any reason to believe it. The minister has not been consistent in his statements on this matter from day one. In fact, he confirmed my suspicion when in the statement he referred to one Question Period where he admitted he raised the issue, he raised the issue of bilingual capacity, but omitted the Question Period a few days before where he had told us that he did not raise it. I mean, it confirms to my mind--here the minister confirms through his own action that, in essence, he did raise the matter.
Mr. Chairperson, this matter is not over. This matter will not be over until this minister accepts and this government accepts that what the minister did by bringing the Chief Judge into this process was wrong, that this agreement that they have, apparently, which he will not answer to in terms of the details, quite conveniently, is an illegitimate agreement, when the minister realizes that he is going to have to answer those questions, because if he does not answer those questions, he may think he can use the majority of the government's side to defeat any motion that we bring before this committee. They have been using that majority on a number of occasions, but I can tell the minister he does not have the credibility of the people of Manitoba, and he does not have the credibility of the legal community, and if I was the minister, I would be concerned about at least having the credibility of the legal community.
He has been involved in some very difficult circumstances with the Law Society, the Bar Association, but I can tell you right now that I have talked to lawyers as recently as this weekend who say that what the minister has done with the Chief Judge, if he had any credibility before on this, has destroyed that credibility.
I say to the minister, the minister, within a matter of a week of trying to rig the judicial process, talked about electing judges. Do you think anybody believes that? Most of my constituents, they picked it up, yes, that was the guy who wanted to elect judges. Was he not the same one who was just conveniently trying to get one of his select people appointed on that? I mean, that is what has been wrong with the system for years. The minister knows that, and I say to the minister, he does not have credibility when he turns around and then gives these kinds of statements the next day.
I mean, he should talk to some of his members. I bet you they are hearing the same thing out there. You know, credibility is not saying I am the Minister of Justice; I was appointed by the Premier, so therefore I have credibility as Minister of Justice. One of the things about the parliamentary system, that it is based on, something that we are losing ground on in this province I believe, is ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), for example, we would not necessarily--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
An Honourable Member: Is this relevant?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is appointed as a minister, and I am just saying the minister--well, she may actually like what I am saying, I have only mentioned her title. All I am saying, Mr. Chairperson, is the minister is not only a minister in name, I would suggest despite our disagreements that she has credibility as a minister in her department. I would say that of many of her colleagues, including the government House leader (Mr. McCrae). I would have said to the Minister of Justice, before he engaged in this, I would have disagreed with some of the political things he has done. I think, there has been the case of St. Johns, but ministerial responsibility is based on an ethical code that is based on the very roots of the parliamentary system going back hundreds of years.
It used to be that ministers would resign over items for which they were not personally responsible but that they were responsible for because they were the minister, the buck stopped there, and if this happened, well, it was on their watch, so to speak, then they were responsible for it. There are literally dozens of examples of that occurring throughout history. That has been redefined by the Filmon government to the point where now we have a minister not, in this case, responsible for the actions of others. This is the minister himself who tried to rig the process, who then tried to deny it, who then tried to construct the statement and drag the Chief Judge into the process. So this minister is culpable directly. He is the one that has been responsible for his credibility as a minister, I think, certainly in the 10 years that we have seen this government in place.
We may have been critical of ministers in the past, but I do not think any minister has had this lack of credibility, particularly in a matter directly within their responsibility. We were critical of previous ministers of Justice for policy items, for negligence as we saw it--the Headingley riot and other issues. You know, we were critical and will continue to be of ministers for policy decisions that were made, either directly or indirectly, that we disagree with. We had exchanges with the ministers in the House today, but there is a big difference between the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), where we disagree on policy.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) where now I say regrettably that we not only disagree with what he did, we are basically making the case here in this committee that the minister has no more credibility because he has shown contempt for this Legislature, for this committee, I believe, for the Chief Judge, many of the legal community. I do not know, to the minister, how he can get out of this. A few weeks ago when this first arose, an easy way out was for the minister to resign, call the independent inquiry. I do not think the option of the independent inquiry is even necessarily applicable at this point in time, because in the end result what the minister has done this week to 10 days goes far beyond his original involvement.
So I say that, indeed, we have raised this as a matter of privilege. We believe this is unprecedented for a minister to refuse to answer questions asked by members of the Legislature on behalf of the people of Manitoba, because he at his own initiative agreed to gag himself, as well as the Chief Judge and then speak for the Chief Judge once, and at that point on in time say that he has nothing more to add. This is not a civil case in the court. There is no parallel for this in any courtroom. The only judgment we can make is based on the parliamentary system which I believe makes it absolutely clear that this minister is responsible not only to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who appoints him but to this Legislature, its committees, to the House, and to its rules and traditions. I believe the minister has been negligent in each and every case.
I say to the minister: you may be able to cling in there because the Premier does not see anything wrong with your conduct. You may be able to cling in there because you are a majority on this committee that cannot outvote you, but you are doing damage every day you sit there and allow this to continue, damage to not only your own circumstance but to the Chief Judge, the legal profession and, I believe, the confidence that the people of Manitoba have in you and the court system.
I say to you, and I want to finish off on this, Mr. Chairperson, I say to the minister: please, please, please, for the sake of not only your own personal political circumstance but for the fate of the position that you hold, which I believe has responsibilities that surpass pretty well any other ministerial portfolio in this House, please stop doing this kind of damage, reflect on what is happening and do the honourable thing. I believe, in this case, you do not have the confidence of this Legislature and the people of Manitoba as Minister of Justice, and it is time to resign as the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I am not too sure if we are going to have enough time to have the vote today, but I did want to get a few comments on the record. Listening to both the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and having used my opportunity as a grievance recognizing the importance of this issue, I used my opportunity to grieve on this particular issue, and I will go into that in a little bit more detail at the next opportunity I am given to address the committee.
* (1700)
Before I do that, we cannot underestimate the serious allegations that have been put forward. I think consistency and credibility is important, and if you listen to what the members for Thompson and St. Johns are talking about, even if you buy into your arguments, what you are in essence saying is that we have a Chief Judge that has allowed herself to be manipulated. That being the case, I would ultimately argue that the Chief Judge is just as guilty and therefore should be resigning as the Chief Judge. There is just as much merit for that primarily because, if you have a chief judge that allows that position to be manipulated, that chief judge has done a real disservice to the whole judicial system in that whole area.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
When this matter is before the committee, the member for Inkster will have 29 minutes remaining.