4th-36th Vol. 53-Committee of Supply-Justice-Matter of Privilege

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

When the committee last sat, the honourable member for Inkster had 29 minutes remaining in speaking to the motion by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that the alleged matter be reported to the House. Does the honourable member for Inkster wish to continue?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes. Mr. Chairperson, the advantage of being able to continue is I was able to peruse Hansard from yesterday.

I just wanted to pick up on the point on which I had left off yesterday and that was the whole idea of the Chief Judge wanting to see I guess that consistency. I believe that if, in fact, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is able to demonstrate guilt, let us say, for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), then the same would then apply for the Chief Judge, and a number of allegations were, in fact, raised.

I think what I wanted to do was to quote specifically from the member for St. Johns which I think clearly demonstrates the point, and I quote right from Hansard: "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."

Well, Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest to you that indeed that is a very serious allegation. I guess we all try to do what we can to ensure some sense of accountability in wherever we can have some sort of a positive impact in which there is a benefit to all Manitobans. Wanting to at least be open-minded to the points that the official opposition is bringing to the table, I am still finding it difficult to be able to censure the minister or to request that the minister resign.

When we talk about questions and answers, I have sat through many hours, likely just as many as anyone else inside the Chamber over the last 10 years and listening to debates, questions and answers. I can recall some of the more lengthy speeches were likely given during the Don Orchard and Judy Wasylycia-Leis era or Jay Cowan and Don Orchard, where they would go at each other and one could question the relevancy or whether or not there was even a question or whether or not there was even an answer being provided.

I think there has been a great deal of latitude in providing answers or so-called answers, and equally the same is applied for questions. At times, there has been a question of relevancy in trying to get a minister to answer a specific question. As a member of an opposition, Mr. Chairperson, I can sympathize with that, because when we do our work and we want to be able to do the best job we can, quite often it requires a minister to be straightforward and tell us a very specific answer to a question that is being posed. At the best of times, it can still be difficult.

If a minister chooses to answer a question in such a way which is not satisfactory to a member of the opposition, as a member of an opposition party you can continue to ask the question indefinitely. There are, in fact, no time limits. I can recall having discussions, for example, when we had a larger caucus where--and this would involve House leaders--in a larger caucus we would say, look, if a minister is not going to answer the question, what we would do is we would plan on bringing that minister before a concurrence motion where it is in fact unlimited time. There is a little bit more pressure on the minister then to answer the question. This way, we can move on to different lines and so forth. Ultimately, that is a lever that any member of the opposition can use.

I would suggest, because it has happened to me where you do get a sense of frustration, that you pose your questions during concurrence and make it known to the government House leader and the minister that you are not satisfied and you will continue on. But the quality of the answer itself and that is, in essence, the matter of privilege that is being raised, is really questionable. I think there is just so much discretion, especially if you look at past practices, that I do not believe that this minister has done any worse than some of the other answers or nonanswers that I have heard in the past, especially in the whole area of health care, as I indicated some names of previous members where it just seemed endless, and you quite often wonder, well, where are they both coming from. Is there, in fact, a question or is there, in fact, any sort of an answer to it?

Dealing with the specific issue that has been raised--and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) really focused his attention on the issue. I guess when I look at the issue of rigging, where it is a very serious allegation, I have already commented on the fact of the Chief Judge, and I think that the opposition should be consistent. If, in fact, they believe what they say, the Chief Judge should also be--they should be arguing that the Chief Judge should be resigning. I do not say that lightly. I say that after giving a great deal of thought to it and, as I say, rereading the Hansard from yesterday and thinking of comments that were made previously.

But with respect to the minister, what I did is I had risen after the minister. The minister made a ministerial statement where there was dialogue that occurred in one form or another in which there was supposedly concurrence that that ministerial statement that was being made was shared, at least in part, with the Chief Judge. Well, I can say that in that statement, nowhere does it say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) was wrong. There was miscommunication; that is very obvious. She does not directly contradict what the minister has said.

Yet there is concern in terms of, well, this whole silencing effect that the minister has had over the Chief Judge. I am sensitive to that. That is why later that day I had stood and used my grievance. Every MLA is entitled to one grievance a year. I chose on that day to express my concerns. I went over, from what I could recollect offhand, a number of sequences of events that took place. Then after speaking to it I even indicated it in my grievance that I would be forwarding my speech to the Chief Judge's office.

* (1450)

The following day when Hansard was produced, I did, in fact, send it to the Chief Judge's office. I have not received anything back. In that speech that I gave I emphasized, at least I believe I emphasized, the importance to get something if there is anything of contradiction. If, in fact, the Minister of Justice is not speaking in sync with what the Chief Judge was saying, I would expect that I would at least be notified by it. I have to date received nothing with respect to what I faxed over. That was my speech verbatim from the Chief Judge.

So, Mr. Chairperson, again, when I review what I know to be the facts and discussions that I have had, I do not believe, No. 1, that there is a need to see this motion go to the Chamber; and No. 2, I do not necessarily believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), at least at this time, should have to step down.

Now, I say at this time, Mr. Chairperson, because maybe there is something else that might be out there that would cause me to reconsider it, but to date there has not been anything. My suggestion to the official opposition would be, if they want to continue on in this line, to do two things. If they believe what they are saying, then it is time that they demand for the Chief Judge to resign. Secondly, if they feel that the minister is continuing to filibuster, if you like, that they give the minister notice that they will bring it up during concurrence along with the government House leader. Hopefully that will then put whatever pressure necessary in order to bring the matter to rest so that we can start dealing with other issues facing Justice.

On that point, one of the sad things of this whole ordeal has been the need for that bilingual judge. If in fact there is a need for a bilingual judge, well, what is going to become of it? What would happen if there was a need for some other minority judge in the future and no list is provided? Is there any responsibility?

I think that what we have done is we have gone from the two extremes. We have gone from an extreme where it was strictly a political appointment to a situation where there is no acceptable, allowable modification of a list. I am not convinced that that is in fact the best way to do it. If you make reference to the bilingual requirement, for example, and the minister knew that there was only one person who was bilingual, what the minister could not have controlled would have been the committee from going out requiring other bilingual candidates. There is no physical way the minister could have suggested that a particular individual be put on that list. If in fact that was clearly demonstrated, again, I think that the opposition would have something more to go on. I look at the need for judicial independence. I try as much as possible to respect that, but I would like to see us move on to the whole idea of the need for a judicial review.

I have a resolution inside the Chamber regarding it, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to see that debated. I would like to see a number of issues discussed. I think maybe what we should do is possibly move on, if, in fact, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) is feeling frustrated on this one point, but I would definitely not suggest that it go to the Chamber. Therefore, I would be voting against the recommendation. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: I have a list. The honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had indicated that he wished to speak on this matter.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I want to speak in favour of the motion to bring this matter to the House. This is a procedural motion to censure the minister. In order for it to be voted upon by all members, it must be brought to the House because this committee does not have confidence to judge the matter of privilege under our rules.

So contrary to what the previous speaker may have thought, this is a motion of censure to the minister's conduct in this matter, and it is not at this point a call for his resignation. That has already been made and certainly should be complied with, but that is not the substance of this motion.

Mr. Lamoureux: It is just sort of a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, because I think it is important from what I understand of the motion. Please correct the committee if I am wrong, but this motion is asking for the motion of censure to go to the Chamber, to the full House, so that is, in fact, what we would be debating? [interjection] Correct?

An Honourable Member: Say it again.

Mr. Lamoureux: That the motion is actually asking that the previous motion of censure be brought to the Chamber, so what we are actually debating is the motion to send the other motion to committee.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order, but just for the clarification of the committee--and I am making some interpretations on the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)--the honourable member for Inkster was, I considered, relevant. With respect to the motion that is on the--and he was speaking to the issue that was there, so for the benefit of the committee members, if that were the situation otherwise, then I would have brought that matter to his attention.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood, to continue with your comments.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I was not challenging what the member said in terms of relevance or appropriateness. I was clarifying the point of the motion which you have also done.

The substance of the motion is that the minister has failed to be forthright with the committee and to answer questions that go to the heart of his duties in regard to the appointment of judges. I want to, first of all, review for the matter of the substance what he has refused to answer.

He, first of all, has refused to answer the conflicting accounts that he gave to the House, three different accounts, in regard to issues of bilingualism. He has not been prepared to indicate to the committee when he discovered that there was not a bilingual candidate in the list of seven names. He is not prepared to indicate whether the Chief Judge, acting as chair of the committee, told him on the weekend previous or in the week previous that there was not a bilingual candidate. He has not been willing to be forthright with the committee about that very important matter.

He has not been willing to be forthright with the committee about the question of who proposed taking the list back in clear contravention of the act. He has not been prepared to be forthright with the committee about the matter of the knowledge of whether Mr. Joyal's name was or was not on the list, and when he knew that. He has not been prepared to be forthright with the committee about the question of whether he directed that the list be taken back, or whether the Chief Judge suggested that she might take the list back and see if the committee would be agreeable to adding names, in clear contravention of the act.

* (1500)

He has not been willing to be forthright about the question of the process of the committee in terms of further adding of names, whether he believed that was lawful or not. If he did believe it was lawful, then he clearly did not understand the act, not been prepared to be forthright about that, not been prepared to be forthright about his lack of understanding of his own statute, which was clearly breached.

He has not been forthright with the committee about the gag order that he has apparently saddled himself with. It has been clear to the committee that he is not prepared to answer questions about what happened in the meeting, so there must be a gag order. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why he would not be forthright with the committee about that. He has not been prepared to answer questions of who was present at the meeting for part or all of that meeting, in spite of our request to know whether there were other parties present. He has not been prepared to tell us whose idea it was to hire lawyers and go into a room and negotiate the truth. He has not been prepared to tell us whether he called the Chief Judge and asked the Chief Judge to get a lawyer or whether he did that through an intermediary or whether it was some third party's idea in the first place. He has just indicated that contacts were made. He has not told us what instructions he gave his counsel, his private sector counsel that he hired, to negotiate the truth with the private sector counsel of the judge. He has refused on many, many occasions to answer those questions.

I want to quote from a recent speech by President Bill Clinton at the WTO meetings which our Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) attended. He says, and I quote: We have learned through a long trial and error that governments work best when their operations are open to those who are affected by their actions, that as American Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said famously, sunshine is the best of disinfectants.

The opposition has simply asked that the sun be allowed to shine on some very cloudy and troubling conversations which resulted in a clear breach of the statutes of this province. At least the minster has never tried to suggest that there is a section of the act which allowed the minister to send back a list he did not like. He knows and we know that there is only one time at which a list can be returned, and this certainly was not it. So we are asking for the opportunity to simply let some sunshine in, as probably the most famous of all American judges stated was the best of all disinfectants--and this is a situation that clearly needs disinfecting, because by his actions he has tainted his own office. He has tainted the office of the Chief Judge of this province. He has brought into contempt the process of the House by failing to be accountable. He has brought into contempt the process of the committee by failing to be straightforward with the committee.

So we have very few options but to bring the minister to a situation where the court of the Legislature has an opportunity to judge whether indeed he is in contempt of the Legislature or not. That is the purpose of this motion and it is a worthy purpose, because this committee has gotten nowhere with its inquiries as to what actually happened in that closed room either between the minister and the Chief Judge or between the two counsels for the minister and the Chief Judge.

As the minister knows full well, he might as well have been present in that room with his counsel, that there is no difference when you hire legal counsel to negotiate something for you whether you are present or not. All it does is put in place an apparent mechanism of separation, but there is no separation because, in fact, the parties are negotiating what their employers wish them to negotiate, and that is what was going on in that closed room. Two parties hired counsel to negotiate a suitable climb-down for the minister, it is alleged--and that is what we would like to find out about, whether it is true or not--in return for the Chief Judge agreeing not to table a statement she had written and put to file earlier that week.

So the minister has a lot of questions that ought to be answered. We called for an inquiry; we called for him to do the honourable thing. He will not do that. He will not follow Mr. Runciman's example or the example of countless ministers before, including Wilson Parasiuk who stepped aside for an inquiry which completely exonerated him. Mr. Runciman may or may not be exonerated, but he nevertheless did the right thing.

This minister will not do that, so we are now serving notice that we believe that he holds this committee in contempt and that the House should have a chance to vote on that, and I believe we should do that, Mr. Chairperson. Thank you.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, often when people rise in the Chamber to speak in debate, they say that it is with pleasure that they rise to speak on a bill. In this committee, I must say that I feel sad to be debating this motion because we are talking about the reputation of a minister here, a reputation that I think is in tatters, certainly in the legal community and I think in the broader community in Manitoba as well, and I think that is cause for sadness because it does not happen very often. It has not happened very often with this government. Maybe it should have happened more often with individuals, but I cannot think of another example where a minister has been asked to resign because he is not following the law. In this case, the Attorney General is in a unique position in that it is his responsibility to uphold all the laws of Manitoba and the laws of Canada, that it is his department's responsibility to administer.

I think not only has he broken the law, particularly the act that we are talking about here, The Provincial Court Act, but probably his oath of office. He has certainly abrogated some of his responsibilities and duties as a minister. Now, I think we are dealing with a piece of legislation that was improved by this government. We know that the Law Reform Commission, for example, brought in a report called the Independence of Provincial Judges dated 1989 and that in 1990 when the current Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) was the Attorney General, that the amendments were brought forward.

I went to the Legislative Library and I got out the speeches that people made on Bill 70, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, in November 1989. We know that not only did the government who introduced it support it but also the official opposition, the Liberal Party at the time. The critic was one Paul Edwards. He supported the bill, and the critic for the NDP who spoke on the bill was the current Leader of the official opposition, and all three parties supported the amendments to The Provincial Court Act. We think that those amendments were an improvement over the previous process, which was one totally of political patronage. It is really interesting to look back on that old process and see how it worked.

A couple of weekends ago, I read a book called A Majority of One: the Life and Times of Lewis St. George Stubbs, who was a judge and later a member of the Legislature. He talks about judicial appointments. It is quite interesting to read some of the quotes, especially the ones about himself. In fact, the Law Society of Manitoba was not happy with his appointment, and they said it was a clear case of political patronage. Judge Stubbs replied: Was it not ever thus; tell me something new. He was appointed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King. Now, would there be a reason why a Liberal Prime Minister would appoint a Liberal as a judge? Well, had he ever been a candidate in a federal election? Yes, he was. He was a candidate in Marquette in a federal election, and so it would be no surprise that he was appointed as a judge.

* (1510)

So it used to be that political patronage was the order of the day, not only federally as it still is but provincially in every province. For example, in Ontario there was a royal commission of inquiry into civil rights by Chief Justice James McCrewar [phonetic], and one of the interesting quotes that I found was this: There have been isolated cases where one who has not been a supporter of the party in power has been selected for the office, but such cases are not usual. This would have applied to all provinces at that time.

When I was in Toronto at Christmas, we were guests in the home of my wife's relatives, and one of them is a judge appointed by the federal government. He had been nominated by an organization in Manitoba to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. So there was great excitement and anticipation about his chances of being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. I listened to some of the conversation which was really quite speculative in nature, and when it was finished my comment was: wrong party. He was a Conservative and appointed by a Conservative government, and he knew that his chances of being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada were zero. He agreed with me. He knew that he did not have a chance.

So we know that the federal appointment process is still very much of a political process, but the fact that provinces have changed the process is a good sign, and the federal government could institute reforms based on what has happened in the various provinces.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I will remind members of the committee that we are debating the motion, that the alleged matter be reported to the House, and I would ask all honourable members to remain relevant to the motion before us. I would ask the honourable member for Burrows to continue.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for that advice. I think it would be fair to say that whenever we have asked questions of this Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) about The Provincial Court Act or about the appointment process, we have been stonewalled, that this minister has refused to answer questions. That is why we have introduced this motion.

It seems that there was a gag order. It would be interesting to know--perhaps this minister will write his memoirs sometime and then we will know, but I think there was probably a sense of crisis in the Premier's Office and the minister's office, and probably this minister got called into the Premier's Office and the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) staff were there. I do not know if the minister had any staff there. He probably felt quite naked standing in front of the Premier, and the Premier said: This has to stop. We have to do some damage control here. We have got to stop this as soon as possible because this cannot go on. We have an idea, and the idea is a ministerial statement, and we will get the Chief Judge to negotiate--we do not know how--and we will get the minister to negotiate. Well, maybe what we will do is we will hire lawyers and we will get them to negotiate an agreement. Then we will read this agreement in the Legislature, and we will call it a ministerial statement. Then we will refuse to answer questions about the ministerial statement. We will refuse to answer questions about how it was negotiated, who hired the lawyers and who paid for them. That way it will stop. There will be nothing new coming out of this.

And what did this minister do? Well, he agreed to it, of course. That is not what he should have done. He should have said: Mr. Premier, it is my reputation that is on the line here, and I am not going to let this drag on for weeks or months. I am going to step aside. We do not even need to call it a resignation; I will step aside. You appoint a judge such as Judge Hughes from Alberta to conduct an inquiry, and we will get to the truth of the matter. We will find out what actually happened, and the judge can decide whether I did anything improper or not. Since this minister and this Premier must believe that their minister did not do anything improper, of course his name will be cleared and then he is back in cabinet or back in as Minister of Justice.

But, no, this minister, I am sure, had the opportunity to say to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that he was going to step aside, but he chose not to. Instead, he chose the route of damage control. He chose the route of a ministerial statement, and then subsequently refused to answer questions in this committee, refused to answer questions in the House. We can only conclude that there must have been an agreement negotiated by legal counsel for both parties that there would be no further answers to questions about the ministerial statement. We are very disappointed that this minister chose that route, because we think that the process of having a list of judges to choose from is an improvement.

Now, maybe the minister does not think it is an improvement. Maybe the minister thinks that it took power away from him, that he, as a democratically elected person representing his constituency, representing the people of Manitoba, for some reason it gives more power to judges and lawyers and less power to an elected person. But if the minister believes that, then he should amend the legislation. He should change it. If he is unhappy with the way it works now, if he cannot get the person that he wants now, if that is his main problem, they have a majority government, they can introduce amendments. They could amend the legislation and give the power back to the minister. But to try and rig the list and to not follow the act is a very improper way to go--[interjection]

This minister has--well, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) can correct me on a point of order. He can answer the questions of our critic. He can rebut what I am saying. He can also step aside.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I just want to clarify something, because I certainly did not believe that I had a point of order even though the member is not putting accurate facts on the record. I know that it is the practice of their party to interrupt every time someone says something. I do not do that, because I understand from a number of rulings that that is not a point of order.

So the suggestion here is made that somehow, by my silence, I am agreeing with what the member is saying. Now, if that, in fact, is a point of order, then I will say I do not agree with what the member is saying.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, if the minister likes, when I am finished, he can have the floor and he is free to correct anything that I have said on the record that he thinks is erroneous. I would be happy to be corrected. If he feels that I should withdraw something or apologize for something I have said, I would be happy to do that.

In fact, we would be happy to have the minister put any information on the record. We would be happy to have the minister answer questions. We would be happy to have the minister clarify what we have been saying and, in fact, to clarify some of his answers because, as we know, in Question Period we have had version one, we have had version two, we have had version three. The minister's answers seem to change over time, depending on what scenario of damage control he is following on a particular day in Question Period and which way the wind is blowing. His version of events seems to change, so it would be quite refreshing to have the minister rebut some of the things that I am saying or other people are saying.

To get back to the point I was making, the minister had an act that he had to follow, and it seems that he did not follow it, but that was not the proper way to go. If the minister thought that the process of selecting judges from a list was not the right way, then it is up to him to propose a different way of doing it.

* (1520)

You know, the Law Reform Commission did a lot of research, issued this publication. We followed the trend in other provinces. In fact, my research suggests that we were one of the last provinces to change the process. When the amendments came in, all parties supported it. We think that the minister has a legal obligation to follow the act, and if he does not like the act, then it is up to him to do something about it.

When we sit in the Chamber, we sit under statues of two famous lawgivers. One is Moses, for people who are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, one of the great leaders of our tradition. We give Moses the credit for the Ten Commandments, one of the most famous documents in the Hebrew Bible, and along with monotheism, one of the Bible's most important contributions to western civilization.

Now, can you imagine Moses saying to Aaron, after he encouraged people to build the golden calf, less than two months after the Commandments were given: Well, it is okay; regardless of the Second Commandment, I do not want to criticize you because, after all, you are my brother, so it is okay what you have done. I think we can get around that--[interjection] Well, I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) asked that question because--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having difficulty being patient with the committee with regard to this issue that is before us. This is a very serious matter, and I would ask the committee members to use their time and comments relating to the motion with considerable thought as far as staying relevant. So I just caution the honourable members of the committee and ask the honourable member for Burrows to continue.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for that cautionary note. I was just halfway through my analogy, and I do think it is relevant to talk about the statue in the Chamber of the Manitoba Legislature, the statue of Moses. You know, it is as if this minister said: we have this act--to continue the parallel of the Ten Commandments--we have this act; we have this piece of legislation, but, I think there was just a misunderstanding and, besides, I might need you in the next election. So we will not worry about the act. We will get our appointment on the bench regardless of what the act says, in spite of the fact that this minister has the responsibility to uphold the act and to make sure that the act is followed, including in this instance, by him, because he is the crucial part of the appointment of new judges.

It is up to him to follow those provisions of the act. He cannot rationalize his behaviour or the act and say: we are going to do it some other way. He has to follow the act. He has no choice in this matter.

An Honourable Member: Sort of like the Commandments.

Mr. Martindale: As the government House leader says, sort of like the Ten Commandments. I am glad that you picked up on my analogy there--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would also remind all members of the committee that all comments will be made through the Chair.

Mr. Martindale: I thought that the language in the ministerial statement, which now this minister does not want to answer any questions about since he seems to have a self-imposed gag or maybe a negotiated gag on himself as well as the Chief Judge, that the most interesting word in it for me was recollection, because in the order of service for funerals in the United Church, we have changed it from a sermon to recollection. It makes me think, well, what died here or who died here? The only answer I can come up with is that the truth died here, that respect for judicial independence died, respect for the laws of Manitoba died, and respect for and faith in the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) died here.

We had a column recently in the Free Press, the title of which was Moral Standards in Doubt; the Filmon government prides itself on having had no resignations. I would think that the Premier of Ontario has been a much better example of accepting the resignation of a minister because he broke the law and there is going to be an independent inquiry. But this government has chosen damage control. They have chosen not to answer questions, and this minister goes along with it.

We are disappointed that he is not answering questions regarding the ministerial statement. He will not say when he found out about the fact there were no bilingual candidates. He will not say when the Chief Judge found out there were no bilingual candidates. There are many, many things that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) just put on the record that this minister is not forthcoming about.

Therefore I also support this resolution that we censure this minister for refusing to answer questions related to meetings held between representatives of the judge and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews). Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to this matter. I do not know, sometimes I think I do not fit in here because of my background, but basically I always believe the person is innocent until proven guilty. You could have strong suspicions a number of times. There are many times in my career as a police officer that I knew someone was guilty of a crime, but if I could not prove it, I did not put him in jail. I did not arrest him. I wanted to.

I believe what we have here is a situation where there are strong suspicions, but that is not enough. There are so many important items in the field of justice right now that we should be getting to. We have debated this issue. It has been brought forward.

I look at the real allegation here, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) favoured one candidate and tried to use the fact that that candidate was bilingual to get that person on the bench. But that is just an allegation. We have no definite information that the minister knew that was the only bilingual candidate during any point in the process. [interjection] If the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) wants to speak--he speaks a lot on this issue, and I would like a few moments to speak for a change. I have been the critic for Justice as long as he has here. He has always used--whether it was the previous Minister of Justice--the sledgehammer of tactics, whether it is the minister's salary or anything, procedural tactics to make his issues the most important in this Chamber, and make all other issues insignificant in comparison. I think he has a little bit too much respect for his own importance here and his issues. There are many other issues in--

Mr. Chairperson: Order; order, please. I would like to remind all committee members of the relevance to speak to the motion that is before us here, and also I would like the co-operation of all members, when a member has been recognized to speak, that he be allowed that opportunity to speak freely, and I believe that in the last few minutes that privilege has been maybe tested somewhat, so I would ask all honourable members to bear that in mind, and the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) has the floor.

Mr. Kowalski: I look at the two people who ended up being appointed judges; could not have two finer people appointed, two former Crown attorneys of high quality. It shows that the process did work.

What sometimes is not given enough attention is the fact that there is a need for bilingual judges in the Province of Manitoba, and the official opposition is trying to discount that and say that was only a tactic to get someone with Conservative ties on the bench. Well, that may or may not be true, but how long are we going to talk about that issue?

Like I said, there are many other things that are going on in the Department of Justice that--I was waiting for Justice Estimates to talk about these issues, whether it is family group conferencing, restorative justice, so many other issues. We voted on it, we debated it, and if you do not have the proof, we should go on. I believe there is now another process starting up to get another bilingual judge.

Talking amongst my constituents, asking them what should I be doing as your MLA--I just sent out a survey--raking the Justice minister over an appointment that has already occurred was not at the top of their priorities. There are many other issues that they would like us to be dealing with, whether it is child poverty, whether it is youth crime, whether it is the changes in the Young Offenders Act. There are so many other things we could be talking about, but we go on and on.

My colleague from Inkster has made a very good point. If we are pointing a finger at the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) as being involved in negotiations that were illegal or morally incorrect, then the Chief Judge would have to resign also, but I do not hear the official opposition calling for the resignation of the Chief Judge of Manitoba, and it takes two people to negotiate a deal. If they are saying that the Minister of Justice should resign, that the Minister of Justice did something wrong, then they are saying that the Chief Judge of Manitoba is party to that.

Sometimes it is hard for me to understand why we are going on when I look at how federally appointed judges are appointed. Are we saying there is no patronage in federally appointed judges? Yet our federal court system is carrying on. There are many rulings where you would agree or disagree, but the point is there are allegations, there are suspicions, but that is not enough for us to spend so much of our time as legislators, as people who have been elected for Manitoba to deal with the things that are going on in Manitoba, in Justice issues, on just this one issue.

* (1530)

So let us get on with it. Let us get on with some other issues. If there is hard evidence, bring it forward; put up or be quiet. So let us get on with the issue. We have dealt with it. There have been a number of votes on this. There have been a number of questions in Question Period, but the evidence has not been produced. Did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) know there was only one bilingual candidate at any point? Did the Minister of Justice know who was on that list? We could suspect, and suspicion is not enough, so let us get on and deal with some other issues.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I agree with the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that there is an inordinate amount of time being spent on this issue, and that, of course, is because the minister has not answered very simple questions posed by this side, some of which deserve only a yes or no answer. It is important that we do move to the other issues that are ahead of us in the Department of Justice Estimates, so it is the purpose of this motion to get the attention of the minister to the seriousness of this matter and to illicit from him co-operation, respect for the process, and engagement in the question and answers.

The issue really here is the discrepancy between what we know the Chief Judge told Mr. Guy Joubert and Colleen Suche and what is in the ministerial statement purporting to be the recollection of the Chief Judge. From what Ms. Suche and Mr. Joubert say, there is no resemblance to their recollection found in the ministerial statement. This raises a very serious issue as to who is not telling the truth. Manitobans can only conclude that someone is not telling the truth.

Now, these are not allegations raised by the opposition. These are allegations raised by representatives of the legal community. We have a responsibility here in this Assembly, because this is where the minister is to be accountable to, to untangle the discrepancy, because it is untenable to leave it as it is. Right now there is a serious cloud over the minister and the Chief Judge.

Now, I recognize and again I agree with the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that we have to move on to other important issues of public safety and so on, but the minister's veracity in ensuring that and finding out what took place is surely a precondition to the believability of his answers on other issues.

Now, the basis of the matter of privilege was not simply that the minister was refusing to answer a question here or answer a question there. The minister was taking the position that he would not answer any questions with respect to the conversations that took place between himself and the Chief Judge on May 4 or the negotiations that followed with the Chief Judge through counsel. That kind of a blanket refusal to answer questions on those occurrences and given the apparent agreement that he had entered into with a third party outside of this Legislature, which he uses as an excuse to refuse to answer questions, is certainly not acceptable in this Assembly, an Assembly which requires his accountability for what took place.

So the basis of what we are seeking is, first of all, accountability as a matter of principle, and second of all, information so that indeed we can get on with the other business of this province. I might want to add, however, that the business of this province in no small way does depend on the confidence that Manitobans have, not just in the Minister of Justice, but in the Chief Judge certainly.

It is our intention to try and reinstill that confidence. We believe that is our responsibility here and we do so through the avenues of questions and answers and accountability. So with those final comments, we are prepared to see the question called.

Mr. Lamoureux: Just before we do that, I did have a question. We ask questions and answers during the Estimates because, in essence, the minister is putting forward a number of motions through the Supplementary Information. We have to vote on it, we have questions we pose to the minister. Sometimes the minister will answer it in whatever way he or she feels is appropriate. Sometimes we are content, sometimes we are not content.

Right now, we have a different type of a motion that is before us. I recognize that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) does not have any obligation to answer a specific question, but I do have a question for him. It would definitely be helpful for me in terms of trying to get a better understanding of where it is that he is coming from. If the member for St. Johns could answer it, I would appreciate it.

Given the context of what he has said over the last number of days, would he then argue that the Chief Judge should also have to resign as the Chief Judge? I would appreciate if he could just share that concern. It is relevant because I would argue that the Chief Judge and Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) could be put in the same boat on this particular issue. I would appreciate if the member for St. Johns would answer that.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. This is somewhat unusual. The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) does not have the authority to speak on behalf of this issue with regard to what the honourable member is asking for. If the honourable member wishes to offer comments or remarks on his own volition which are pertaining to your query, the Chair will recognize that.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, if I might be of some assistance, since you were in debate on this motion, the member can put forth comments in the form of a question on the record. Then it is up to other members to respond or not to respond. I think that was the spirit that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) put it forward in, and since this is debate in committee, we are also not limited in terms of number of times we can speak.

So I think the member for Inkster was in order. You know, whether or not those questions are responded to by any member is really their choice in debate. I would suggest we treat the member for Inkster's comments as being in order and allow him to continue, and then other members can respond, whether it be from our side or the government's side in debate as well.

* (1540)

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. What he has indicated is what I basically have just said in terms of clarification.

The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), if he wishes to make comments on what the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has raised in his comments, then he is free to do that, but he has no authority to speak other than his own comments as far as this committee is concerned. If he wishes to speak, the Chair will recognize him for that.