4th-36th Vol. 45-Oral Questions

Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today His Excellency John-Alexander Thomoglou, Ambassador of Greece to Canada.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in a newspaper article on Friday, the Minister of Justice was quoted as saying that he was the person who initiated adding names to the list for judicial appointments. In this House on Thursday, the minister specifically said, and I quote Hansard in terms of the quote of the minister: this suggestion of the list to be expanded was not made by me; it was a suggestion made by the chairperson of that committee.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice: was he the one who initiated the expansion of the list or was it the Chief Judge as he has stated in Hansard on Thursday?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, on that particular issue I can indicate that I had raised the issue of bilingual capacity, French-speaking capacity on our courts. I had indicated to the Chief Judge the concern I had over that issue, and we proposed a solution. I certainly indicated that I would be prepared to recommend to my cabinet colleagues the increase of two to three positions in order to accommodate that. As a result of that, certain discussions followed which in fact led to the Chief Judge taking certain steps, but I might indicate that throughout the course of the discussion with the Chief Judge, I certainly raised no names with the Chief Judge, suggested no names, and did nothing improper in that respect.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister again contradicted what he said in this House on Thursday: the suggestion that the list was to be expanded to include bilingual candidates in fact was not a suggestion made by me. It was a suggestion made by the chairperson of that committee when she came to me in respect of this particular issue.

So my question to the Minister of Justice: what version of the truth is accurate, the one he just gave us that he initiated the discussion with the Chief Judge, or the answer he gave us to questions we posed to him on Thursday when he said the Chief Judge initiated this proposal to him?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, we had a long conversation on a number of issues, including the particular issue of the bilingual capacity of the court. There were certain things that had to be accommodated in order to achieve that. I was prepared to make recommendations that the number of positions be increased from two to three. At no time did I indicate any names to the Chief Judge. I think that is essentially the process. I indicated to the Chief Judge there were two things that I was primarily concerned about. Number one, that the legislation allow for her to go back to the committee. She indicated yes. Secondly, that she was to obtain the consent of the committee, and she indicated that she would do that. We left that issue at that.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: I assume that the minister is saying that he was wrong in the House on Thursday and that he is now saying today that he was the one who initiated the issue of other candidates to the Chief Judge who is the chair of the committee.

Madam Speaker, Colleen Suche, president of the Law Society, on May 7 after Question Period stated that the minister received the list he requested and that he asked that two names be added to the list, one being bilingual. I would like to ask the minister: is Colleen Suche's recollection of the process that took place in the minister's initiation correct?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, Colleen Suche was not there. The Chief Judge, acting as the chair of the nominating committee, was there with me. So I cannot comment on her recollection of a conversation that she had no part of. I certainly indicate that her version of the facts is not the version of the facts that I recall from that conversation.

Mr. Doer: The minister has had two versions of the facts. Version one, on Thursday in this House, was that the Chief Judge initiated the extra names. Version two today, and apparently last Wednesday, was that he initiated the two names. Colleen Suche is saying version two, today's version, is the version that they were told in the committee. She goes on to say, as president of the Law Society, that the minister is trying to subvert the process. He is trying to get around it in a completely inappropriate way. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice: why is he trying to subvert the process, according to a member of the independent committee?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there was certainly no intention to subvert any process in this respect. The issue was clear. The only person who could go back to the committee was the chair of the committee. The chair of the committee indicated she had the right to go back to the committee to discuss that issue. Secondly, the concern that I had in respect of the consent of the committee was something we specifically discussed. There was no issue in respect of trying to get around the committee. The committee had to consent to anything that needed to be done. I want to indicate again, at no time did I raise any names that should be put forward to the committee.

Mr. Doer: Again, Ms. Suche's recollection and record of the events is consistent with the second version that the minister has given us in the House, not the first one, that he initiated with the Chief Judge the addition of two candidates for the selection of judges after they, the committee, had proposed names to the minister pursuant to the act.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: in 1993, the government posted the position for the legal profession that the successful applicant would be fluently bilingual in English and French. Can the minister indicate whether the same process was used in this selection of this list of candidates by the independent committee?

Mr. Toews: Again, it is the chair that does the ads; it is not the government. In fact, in respect of the appointment of Judge Chartier in 1993, the Order-in-Council makes absolutely no comment in respect of whether the position is to be bilingual or not. The advertisement was for a bilingual judge. In this particular case, again, the Order-in-Council makes no reference to whether or not it is bilingual because that is not indicated in the legislation. What in fact occurred, as a result of discussions that the Chief Judge and I had over a period of four to five months on this issue, was that one of those positions was clearly for a bilingual position. I indicated that, in speaking to my community members in respect of this issue, one of the qualifications that the government was certainly looking to fill was the issue of a bilingual judge. So this was something that was done in the same way it was done in 1993.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: In the record, it is in writing--one is posted as bilingual, the other one is not--so the minister can give us version two again of the events.

Madam Speaker, one member of the community committee, Ms. Kozminski, says that this was never a criterion, but yet the minister now is saying he met separately, I suppose, with the community members who are, by the way, the Order-in-Council appointments by cabinet. I believe that the individuals on it, Mr. Bottomley, a person appointed by the government, another--I do not know whether it was Alfred MacDonald or Mr. McPherson [phonetic] on this selection committee and Ms. Kozminski. Is the minister saying that he meets separately with the Order-in-Council appointments from the community versus the members of the Law Society, the Bar Association? He has separate meetings, and on what basis does he proceed with that process?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, that is, in fact, exactly what happened. An appointment was made to meet with all of the representatives that were appointed by government, and two of those people showed up at the meeting. Ms. Kozminski never showed up at that meeting, and I have never talked to Ms. Kozminski about this entire process at all. Indeed, I do not even think I could recognize Ms. Kozminski if I ever saw her.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, The Provincial Court Act sets out that the appointment to a vacancy shall be made from a list of candidates that is recommended by a nominating committee. That section came from a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission back in '89 which said: it appears to us that a possible risk of abuse might arise if the Attorney General were allowed to ask for a new list. For example, an Attorney General could ask for a list after list of candidates until one was discovered who was politically suitable.

My question for the minister: would the minister recognize that once the names are presented to him, as we understand at least from his version last week, last Monday, he cannot send the list back explicitly or implicitly? No matter what series of events the minister wants to give to the House today, he cannot send the list back once he has received them. He has broken the law. Would he do the right thing?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): In fact, at no time was that list rejected. In fact, at the end of the meeting with the Chief Judge, when the Chief Judge indicated that she was going back to the committee on the basis of the legislation to seek their consent, I indicated, in fact, that there was never an issue of rejection of the list. Indeed, in the last conversation I had with the Chief Judge on Wednesday, May 6, when she indicated that the committee did not consent to the bilingual issue, then I indicated to her very clearly that I would be proceeding on the basis of the seven names and the two positions.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Does the minister not understand that last week he said he agreed with the Chief Judge's suggestion--and we will take that just for a moment, as if there was some validity to what he said last Thursday, Madam Speaker. Does he not understand that the legislation does not allow for the list to go back even if the Chief Judge thinks she has the power to bring it back, even if the minister thinks the committee can consent to reconsidering? They did their work. They worked over months. They finished their job. They brought the list to the minister. How can he say they wanted to take it back? Would he resign?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): At no time, Madam Speaker, did I suggest they take the list back. There was a proposal that I, in fact, raised to address the issue of a bilingual judge. This was a matter we had discussed for months in terms of getting a bilingual judge to assist the court with their specific issues, and at no time was the list rejected. When the Chief Judge went back to the committee, the government had not rejected that list; I had not rejected that list, and indeed when the committee--[interjection]

* (1350)

Well, Madam Speaker, under the legislation, if there are three positions, then there must be a minimum of nine names and a maximum of 18. In order to meet the obligations of the legislation, that had to be met.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, this is getting worse. Would the minister try and explain to Manitobans now how he can say there were three positions open when there was an Order-in-Council for two vacancies? The nominating committee acted on the basis of two vacancies, bilingualism of which was not a qualification. What is this minister trying to play? What is he trying to do and subvert this process? Would he explain that?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I believe that I have explained it. I have indicated that the proposal that I would recommend to my cabinet colleagues, that there be three positions, is clear. I do not deny that at all. I made that undertaking that I would recommend. In order to meet the obligation of three positions, the legislation is very clear how many names there have to be. At no time was the existing list rejected.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice for the Province of Manitoba has just contradicted himself in a most serious way regarding a most serious incident. He has just told the people of Manitoba, in this House where we are to take his word, that there were now three positions open on the Provincial Court of Manitoba. That was not the position that he said last week. He is now telling Manitobans today, because it is Monday I suppose, that he initiated the discussions about a bilingual judge. Last week he said the Chief Judge initiated that. Who are Manitobans to believe, the Chief Judge of Manitoba, the Attorney General of Manitoba, the head of the Bar Association, the head of the Law Society? It cannot be this minister; he changes his tune day after day.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have been clear in what the position was in respect of my conversation with the Chief Judge. The issue of a bilingual judge had been discussed with the Chief Judge since the resignation in The Pas of a particular judge, and I cannot remember that date, but the extent of our conversation lasted over a period of months, or our conversations on that issue. The issue of a bilingual judge was raised at the meeting on Monday by me. There is no question about that.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice said last Thursday in the House that he thought the suggestion brought by the Chief Judge was reasonable, and I quote: and agreed with her suggestion.

Would the minister today admit that when he said that last Thursday, he was just deliberately misleading the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the people because the events that he describes today say that he initiated? Which version today is expedient for the minister?

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, that is exactly the problem I posed and the solution that was provided by the Chief Judge, that she said she would go back to the committee.

* (1355)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Madam Speaker, I think as members we are prepared, just for a moment, to accept any version.

Regardless of what version, whether it is the version from Wednesday, whether it is the version from Thursday, whether it is the version from today, I ask the minister: does he not recognize that whatever version, he has broken the law? He implicitly or explicitly sent the list back to the nominating committee, totally contrary to the wording of the act and contrary to the spirit and the intent of that section to protect Manitobans from the appearance of patronage that this minister appears to be engaged in?

Mr. Toews: No, Madam Speaker, I do not agree with that. There were two issues--one as to whether or not the legislation allowed the Chief Judge to go back to the committee. It was her opinion that she could go back to the committee, and she did so. The second issue was the issue of the consent of the committee, and that was important. One has to obtain the consent of the committee.

I want to say, those two issues aside, which are very important, at no time did I suggest or raise any names with the Chief Judge. The accusation that the members are now making seems to be shifting. It shifts from the substantive accusation that I somehow raised names, and now they are staying away from that. This week they are changing their story and tack by trying to find some discrepancy in a version of facts that they were not a party to in terms of a conversation.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, and it is to continue the follow-up with respect to the need for an independent review. There is absolutely no doubt in the minds of most Manitobans that there is a need for that independent review. The Minister of Justice tends to believe that we should be waiting for the task force from Alberta.

My question is: if the minister recognizes that there are some faults, serious faults in the system, why will he not acknowledge the need for that independent review today?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the issue of an independent review of the entire court system certainly has to be kept separate and apart from the issues that we have been raising here. One of the things about the independent review is that it requires not just the desire of the Attorney General or the members of cabinet or a particular political party, it requires the input of the judiciary, the members of the legal profession, and indeed most importantly, members of the public. So this is not a process or a path that we embark upon lightly. I agree with the member that there are from time to time problems with the justice system and that we need to address them. The extent to which that review should occur, of course, needs to be carefully considered before any commitment is made.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, then I ask for the minister to make that commitment to start the review in progress. I acknowledge the importance of an independent judiciary, but it does not justify complete total lack of accountability for our judicial system. That is why, again, I specifically ask the minister then: will he take the steps necessary in order to start the process today?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I always find the advice and comments from the member for Inkster to be helpful, and I will certainly take his thoughts and concerns into consideration in respect of any recommendations that I may give to my fellow cabinet colleagues.

* (1400)

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, given that, will the minister then make a commitment today that some time within the next six months we will see in place an independent review committee that will at the very least come back with recommendations for all political parties inside the Chamber?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the need for a review of aspects of our justice system--and I mean that in the broadest sense of the word; I do not want to particularize in respect of any one segment--but I am not yet convinced at this point as to the best mechanism for doing that and to what extent the justice system should be reviewed.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, a protocol and a process has been put in place by the Red Cross for use in Manitoba whereby human serum-albumin, a blood product which is unlicensed, is being used in Manitoba institutions. Caregivers must phone the Red Cross in Ottawa to receive a special emergency drug registration status, then log the use of this unlicensed product into the log books.

Given what has happened in the blood supply and the difficulties of hepatitis C victims and other victims, can the Minister of Health indicate whether or not he has given his approval to the use of these unlicensed blood products in Manitoba?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member raises a very interesting question. It is a matter that I must admit to him I am not fully apprised of. I can tell him, though, that the licensing and the process for licensing and use of blood and blood products, as well as pharmaceuticals, rests with the national government, but I would be more than pleased to investigate this particular matter to update him on the process and the reason why that in fact is happening.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister also confirm that while caregivers register the utilization of these unlicensed blood products, specifically albumin and possibly blood plasma as well, in fact the patients who receive these unlicensed blood products do not provide informed consent to the use of this unlicensed product?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, in the course of the debate that we have been having around the hepatitis C issue that many members have participated in, it has become, I think, very apparent that in our institutions today, which up until the creation of the regional health authorities have been run by independent organizations, it is fundamentally important that people receive the necessary information to properly assess the risk of dealing with any blood or blood products or other particular products or procedures. That is one of the, I think, results of the debate that we have been having. I do not believe that is entirely in place today, but it is certainly a suggestion that I intend to be acting on within the new system.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I can inform the minister that this very question is being asked of the Minister of Health in Ottawa as we speak. I can also inform the minister that we have confirmed from the Red Cross that in fact unlicensed blood-product protocol has been put in place.

I would like the minister to promise to this House that he will come back to this House tomorrow outlining what the procedures are, whether or not approvals have been given for the use of this unlicensed product and what steps have been taken to alert patients who are receiving the unlicensed products that they, in fact, are receiving products that are not licensed.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I think it is very important to properly appreciate and divide the responsibilities in each case. The provincial Minister of Health and this minister do not make decisions as to what pharmaceuticals physicians prescribe or make decisions around courses of treatment. That responsibility rests with the regulator of the products that are produced, which is the national government, and it rests with the caregivers and their professional bodies. So, as minister, I do not have a role in those professional decisions.

What I can tell the member, as the trustee of the public in the operation of regional health authorities who are now the owners and operators or the contractors for the vast majority of health care services, that ensuring Manitobans have the right information to participate in decisions around their care is fundamentally important and that with the new Canadian blood agency and our regional health authorities I intend to see steps taken to ensure that that information is provided as we move into the new era of the new Canadian blood system.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, we understand that last Monday or so the nominating committee brought to the Minister of Justice the list from which the minister is required by law to appoint the candidate, and in this case two candidates, to the provincial bench. The minister now says, however, that he sent the list back, which by itself is against the law, because he actually wanted a third position to be filled. Would the minister admit that he had no lawful authority whatsoever to pick a third judge; there was no intention of doing that, there was no process in place, that that is simply a ruse for this minister to skirt the law and appoint someone, indeed someone who was suggested? One person only fit the bill for a bilingual judge appointment from the list.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the issue of who or who was not on any particular list because that is totally improper, and I certainly had no--

An Honourable Member: Your inaction was improper.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Toews: Well, you know, again the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) seems to think that he was at that conversation. What I can indicate is that I raised the issue of the bilingual issue; I raised the issue about the recommendation in terms of the additional position for a bilingual judge. The judge made certain suggestions as a consequence of that. My concern was did the legislation authorize that. The Chief Judge's position was yes, it did.

The second issue--and here the member says I am skirting the law, I am somehow avoiding the law. The issue is did the committee consent. The consent of the committee was crucial. The judge had the right. She said to go back, and the committee had to consent.

Mr. Mackintosh: Does the minister not understand, not just the intent but the wording of the act, an act brought in by the members opposite, their own legislation, or does he in fact understand it but wishes to disregard it? He thinks he is above the law. In either case, will he admit that he is unfit to sit in that position as Minister of Justice with this kind of action?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I just had occasion to read the newspaper this weekend where a former colleague of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) said that in his day it was just heavy-duty lobbying by cabinet ministers in order to get judges. This government brought in the changes to the law so that it would prevent the kinds of activities that used to go on over on the New Democratic side. So this was the first legislation of its kind in Canada. It is new legislation, and it is very significant legislation. There were conversations that the Chief Judge and I had, and I do not see anything improper in terms of the suggestion that the Chief Judge said and the authority that she had to go back to the committee.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Would the minister, who does not see anything improper about playing ping-pong with the list from the nominating committee, explain to Manitobans how he is to fulfill his legal responsibility to see that the administration of public affairs--I am quoting from the legislation governing his office--is in accordance with law? How can he continue when he breaks the law, Madam Speaker? Will he now resign, do the proper thing?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, again, the members are trying to raise an issue of process. They have an idea about what specific process should be followed. The concern that I had is that the process was sanctioned by legislation. It was clearly the chair of the committee's position that that process was sanctioned. If there is any question about the process that was followed--it is not a question of breaking the law. It is a question of ensuring through the certiorari remedy to review that, to ensure that the process was correct.

The process, in my opinion, was defensible on the basis of the judge's comments, and my particular concern was at the end of the day did the committee consent.

* (1410)

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Even if we accept in the best light the minister's versions of events today, it is clear, even in the best light, that the minister was attempting to negotiate the terms of the legislation that was brought in by this government with respect to the independent appointment of judges. Given that, I look to the minister in terms of his legal experience, his background and his profession as a lawyer. Does he not recognize that he cannot pass judgment on this situation, given his steps in this regard, that he ought to step aside, he ought to allow the matter to be examined? If it is found that there was nothing inappropriate, then he can step back in, but he can no longer stay as the Attorney General of this province and defend this position.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there are many times that I have given legal opinions where many, many lawyers did not agree, and one of those significant ones was when I was counsel to the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and when the member for Brandon West wanted to bring in the drinking and driving laws. The NDP and Liberals were opposed to those laws, and every lawyer in this province said it was unconstitutional. I said to the minister at that time that the law, our Constitution, permits this, and the member for Brandon West and this government went ahead.

So I am not afraid of giving legislation and views on legislation, and in this particular case there was nothing improper about the process.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, does the Minister of Justice not recognize that he is the chief lawmaker and law administrator of the province, brought in legislation which even given the best light of his defence appears to have been breached, and the Law Society says it has been breached, and contradictory statements, and the Bar Association? Does he not recognize that he can no longer stand up and defend his actions as the Justice minister in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Toews: Well, now I think we are clearer what the issue is. The issue is one of process. Was the process proper? The remedy for that is to review it, and the review is done through certiorari. If the member feels that there was anything wrong with that process, there is a legal remedy. Take your legal remedy.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, it is perplexing to me that the Minister of Justice, who has stated three separate versions of events and who has been contradicted--how can the Minister of Justice then tell members of the Legislature that they should bring a certiorari application on a decision he made that breached his own legislation brought in by his government? That is the reason why the minister has no choice but to resign and step aside.

Mr. Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, I disagree with the analysis given by the member for Kildonan who is also a lawyer and disagrees with the interpretation that I have provided. I want to indicate--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the members have indicated that I have given three different versions of events. That is clearly not correct. There was a long conversation, and they are choosing different aspects of a conversation and then saying, because it is three different statements made in three different contexts, there is a contradiction.

My position has been clear. I was the one who raised the particular issue and concern about a bilingual position. I do not disagree with that. The Chief Judge proposed the solution as to what should be done, and that was the context of my answer on Thursday or Wednesday. That is correct. [interjection] All right, Thursday. The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) indicates that was on Thursday. Well, that is fine. That was the context on that day, and the Chief Judge indicated she would proceed back to the committee.

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