4th-36th Vol. 46-Matter of Privilege

Madam Speaker, it is our understanding that a meeting was held on Monday, May 4, last Monday, a meeting attended by the minister and the Chief Judge of Manitoba in her capacity as chair of the nominating committee which was struck by Order-in-Council in order to fill two vacancies on the Provincial Court.

The sole purpose, we understand, of that meeting was so that the Chief Judge could present to the minister a list of candidates for the two positions. We understand that the nominating committee came up with seven names and then presented those to the minister at this meeting. Within the context of this meeting, Madam Speaker, there are serious questions now being raised about what was said.

The first indication as to what was said at that meeting came from respected members of the Manitoba legal community, first being Mr. Guy Joubert, the president of the Manitoba Bar Association, a member of the nominating committee. The second came from Ms. Colleen Suche, Q.C., the president of the Law Society of Manitoba, also a member of the nominating committee. Their version of events and advice from the chair to them were consistent with each other.

Now, Madam Speaker, to briefly go over the inconsistencies. First of all, by way of background, not statements in this House, we recognize that, but statements made by the minister against which we will look at statements made to the Assembly. First of all, it appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday, May 7, the following information: he--that is the Justice minister--said he contacted Webster and asked her if there were any other qualified bilingual candidates and, if so, would the committee consider adding them to the list. He said he would recommend such a person to cabinet for an appointment.

Now, Madam Speaker, the minister said in this House that that was simply a paraphrasing; it was not a direct quote. Interestingly, the next day in the Winnipeg Free Press, the same writer said and maintained the paraphrased information and the writer put in the paper, but in an interview with the Free Press on Wednesday, the Justice minister indicated he was the one who brought forward the idea of adding candidates, not what the minister said last Thursday in the House: it was the chair of the committee.

Now then, moving along, I want to draw attention of the House to what the minister said on May 7. The issue here is who raised the issue of the need for a bilingual nominee to be presented to the minister. The minister said in the House on May 7, that is 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 in fact a suggestion made by the chairperson of that committee when she came to see me in respect of this particular issue."

Now, interestingly in the same series of questions in this House, he then went on to say this: "This was an issue we had raised jointly." Even on Thursday his statements contradict the other.

* (1335)

Then let us go to yesterday, Madam Speaker. The minister all of a sudden changes his tune. No longer was it not a suggestion made by him. He said yesterday, "I had raised the issue of bilingual capacity, French-speaking capacity on our courts." He went on to say, "I had indicated to the Chief Judge the concern I had over that issue," and interestingly, "and we proposed a solution." Then he went on to talk about how--this is the evidence of negotiating: "I certainly indicated I would be prepared to recommend to my cabinet colleagues the increase of two to three positions in order to accommodate that." Finally, yesterday, he said this, and this is very clear, and so clearly contradicting last Thursday's information from the minister. He said, "The issue of a bilingual judge was raised at the meeting on Monday by me. There is no question about that," he concluded.

Well, you have different versions by the same person of the same meeting. And what did the minister say on Thursday to placate people who were questioning his integrity? He said, and this is a very important statement. He said this: "I have accurately conveyed the substance of the discussions between the Chief Judge and I on this issue." That cannot be true, Madam Speaker. He purposely came into this House. He gave conflicting accounts of who raised the issue of a bilingual candidate in the face of assuring Manitobans, assuring this House, that he had accurately presented that information. You cannot have that without concluding that he has deliberately misled the House. The evidence has to be convincing, I understand. That evidence meets the test.

There is another serious issue here. There is the issue of a contempt by this minister for the law of Manitoba, a law brought in by the members opposite to attempt to move towards modernizing the appointment of judges to the Provincial Court. But the minister has ignored the section that speaks to him. It only speaks to him, no one else. It tells him that he cannot send the list back, but he did so, and so this Legislature must insist on an appropriate sanction. The minister must resign.

In answer to the conflicting information, yesterday the minister got up and said: you do not like it--essentially he said: sue me. What arrogance of a government to say to the people of Manitoba--because that is who he is talking to--you do not like what I am doing, sue me. He said he is not accountable to Manitobans. He is not accountable to the members in this Assembly who come in here with the concerns and worries of their constituents, particularly when we are dealing with serious trends of violent crime and the need to have confidence in our judges. He says: you do not like it, sue me. Well, Madam Speaker, this Legislative Assembly is also a court, and for Manitobans, this court is their court. I say to this minister, he had better understand the difference between a courtroom and the Legislative Assembly. This Legislative Assembly can judge this minister, it can hear all of the players, and it can reconcile the horrendous conflict in information that is out there and it can provide a sanction for this minister deliberately misleading this House.

So I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), considering the inconsistencies in the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Toews) version of events both in this House and outside regarding a very serious issue, the integrity of our justice system itself, that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, we have been treated to a weekly pattern of conduct on the part of the opposition in this House during this session and in past sessions, but certainly this one, with respect to the way they bring forward their issues. Honourable members opposite are desperate because they are not able to show to the people of Manitoba that their version of what good government is all about is anywhere close to what is going on here on this side of the House. I will not touch on the issue of timeliness and the technicalities associated with that. I leave that to your judgment.

* (1340)

The main issue here is whether the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has a prima facie case of privilege which, if he did, would require some further action which is laid out in the motion that he has brought before us today, a motion very similar to other motions, either motions for reference to a standing committee or censuring somebody or calling for somebody to apologize or calling for somebody to resign. It is a very consistent pattern. To be complaining that anybody in this House would be bringing forward inaccurate information or somehow misleading the House is the height of hypocrisy coming from honourable members opposite who daily bring information into this House misleading us, misleading the members of the public and the honourable members should be the last people to be talking about someone misleading.

The honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has, in his relationship with the judiciary, responsibilities to carry out, and he has laid out his conduct of these matters in his answers in this House. I suggest there is absolutely nothing here more than as is usual, as you describe it, Madam Speaker, a difference of opinion as to the facts and the interpretation of those facts. As usual, we find ourselves on a different side than the honourable member for St. Johns.

With that, I suggest there is no question of privilege whatsoever.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I thought the minister was going to get up and announce his resignation, Madam Speaker, and I would defer to the minister if he was going to do that.

I want to stress that, first of all, I do agree with one thing that the government House leader said. There is most definitely a disagreement here in statements, but it is a disagreement between statements made by this minister in this Legislature last Thursday and statements he made again on Monday, two completely different versions of the fact.

I want to stress, as well, this is the first opportunity we have had to review Hansard and confirm that what the minister said yesterday bears no reflection whatsoever with what he said on Thursday. I want to deal, as well, with the fact that what we need to establish here is whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I believe that we can demonstrate that what this minister has done on this matter since the beginning of this issue being debated, whether it be debated outside in the hallway or in this Chamber, he has shown contempt for this Legislature.

I want to sum up essentially what the minister's position has been. On Thursday, he basically said he did not do it and he did not break the law. Yesterday, he said, well, he did it. You know, he did suggest that this addition be made, but he did not break the law. But, you know, if he did it and he did not break the law, it actually had not happened yet, so that was the other qualification put on, since he had not been able to fully rig the system. That was his third defence. His final defence was, well, if I did it and I broke the law, sue me.

Madam Speaker, that is not acceptable to this Legislature and the people of Manitoba. I believe the appropriate thing is not to challenge people to sue him. It is to do the honourable thing and resign, and that is what he should do today.

I want to stress again what the issue is here. You know, Madam Speaker, the issue is not just about the credibility of this minister. I would suggest it is also not about, I think, the fact that this government has been in government so long that it has lost any sense of political ethics. I think really you can do pretty well anything in that cabinet. You will not have the Premier (Mr. Filmon) asking you to resign, because they have no sense of what the public understands to be wrong. I look at the jurisdiction to the east of us where an Attorney General did something that was wrong and resigned pending an independent inquiry.

Madam Speaker, the issue here is whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) attempted to rig the selection of the justices involved, the judges involved. Do not let anyone kid themselves. This was not some new-found concern about putting a bilingual judge in place. If that was the issue, that would have been put in place in terms of the description required in terms of the judge. But everybody knows--put it in the context of a job interview. It is very easy to manipulate who you get and the end result by just changing the qualifications. I think everybody knows of situations where people have rigged the interview process in the job so they will get one person that just happens to have those qualifications. We know that is what the Minister of Justice did.

* (1345)

The Law Society, I believe, has made statements publicly, as has the Bar Association. This minister could not accept the process. This minister had to attempt to rig the process. It is no defence to say he got caught. The fact is he tried to rig the process, and therefore he should resign as Minister of Justice. I would suggest if he is going to stand in his place, this matter will be resolved by him saying he is resigning and then the Premier (Mr. Filmon) doing the appropriate thing, which is to call the independent review that we have suggested from day one on this.

I say to the Premier--because yesterday he let the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) dangle out there--do what other Premiers have done: recognize this is a breach, a serious breach. Recognize it is wrong for a Minister of Justice to try and rig the selection of judges in this province. Ask him to resign, call the independent inquiry and the bottom line is ensure that we have some faith in the justice system. I say to the Minister of Justice, so long as he hangs in there by a thread and does not do the right thing and resign, the people of Manitoba will have no confidence in this Minister of Justice.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, my comments in response to the motion will be brief. I accept the comments of the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) in respect of this issue.

The confusion from the benches on the other side is evident. They say that there is one issue. In fact, there were a number of issues and a number of answers given in response to those issues. There were at least three issues raised in Question Period or by others. Number one, the issue of a bilingual candidate, the issue of the number of positions and the solution. There were three separate issues. It is not surprising that answers in respect of each issue would not be identical because the issue is different. The issue is different, Madam Speaker, and so this is not a matter of being inconsistent. This is a matter of responding specifically to the question raised.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, wanted to put some words on the record with respect to what is a very important issue, a matter of privilege. In fact, the last time we had a matter of privilege I stood in my place, and that was with reference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and his brother, Tom Stefanson, in which I believed that the opposition had a legitimate matter of privilege and took the opportunity to condemn what I believed the government was doing wrong.

In this particular case, Madam Speaker, I do believe at least in part that the minister has been--and this is giving the minister the benefit of the doubt--somewhat confusing in the answers that he has been giving to the official opposition. But having said that, I look to what the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was talking about. What he was talking about is the issue of the rigging of the system. From what I can recall, and I have only been here for 10 years, we had previously a system that had judges being selected through a cabinet process. There was legislation that was brought in a number of years ago where that in fact was changed so that a list would then be brought forward and then cabinet would choose from that list.

Madam Speaker, whenever you bring in legislation, there is always the possibility of a need for some form of change, some things that are not necessarily taken into account. What I would like to point out, at least from what I understand, is that a list was provided. There was a great deal of concern in the sense that there was no one that was on that list that was bilingual. There is a need for a bilingual judge, and in the past what would have happened was the cabinet would have in fact chosen and addressed that particular issue. Today that cannot be done because there is a list that is required, but there was no one on that list, from what I understand. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) was asking or suggesting that a bilingual applicant at least be provided on that list, not a particular individual. If in fact there had been--and I have not heard the name of an individual.

If the Minister of Justice was trying to manipulate the system in order to try to get a specific individual on that list, I would have very serious concerns about that. Then I think we would be taking a step backward, and we would be defeating the purpose of the legislation which is now law in the province of Manitoba. I have not detected that. I have not been provided any information that tells me that the Minister of Justice was trying to get a particular individual appointed to the judiciary. What I do understand is that the Minister of Justice is trying to get a bilingual member of the public to the judgeship. In that sense, given the need for having a more bilingual court, there is some merit to that.

* (1350)

It poses the question, Madam Speaker, what then happens in the future? Let us say we wanted to get an aboriginal person on a particular list. There is always the possibility that list might be too narrow in its scope. Does that mean there is absolutely nothing that we can do as legislators to ensure that the needs of the public, whether it is a bilingual individual, whether it might be someone of a visible minority, at least has the opportunity to get on that list.

That is why I do think it was valuable for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to have engaged in some sort of a discussion with the Chief Judge--and I understand that in fact did take place--where the issue of a bilingual candidate was at the very least brought up. If I were the Minister of Justice and that was an issue that was discussed, I would have hoped that we would have had a particular--at least one, possibly two candidates, because if the need is there, hopefully there would be applications to fulfill that need. If there was only one individual, well, then, who was the individual? Was there a tie-in? Was the Minister of Justice made aware of it? Those are critical questions. Those questions have to be answered before you can actually suggest that the minister is trying to rig the system, because if the minister--and in our rules it says that all members are honourable, so if we say the Minister of Justice is honourable, we have to--and it is not a question of being stupid or naive. Madam Speaker, it is a question of recognizing that each and every one of us try to do the best we can with whatever legislative responsibilities we have. I trust that, until it is proven otherwise, the Minister of Justice was not trying--at least nothing has been presented to me to indicate that he was attempting to get a particular individual. But if we know the name, it should have been brought up in the matter of privilege, the background of the individual. Does that individual have any association with the Minister of Justice?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, yes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Members of the opposition say yes. [interjection] That is right. But if the issue, the real issue, as the opposition House leader talks about, is the rigging of the system, you have to demonstrate that. If you are telling the public to have no confidence and that this minister has to go, Madam Speaker, you have to be able to demonstrate that in a very clear, concise way.

We have a new system here which on the surface one could easily say that there has been some manipulation that has occurred, but if you do start looking at some of the responses that have been given and some of the demands or some of the needs of our judicial system, maybe there is some merit to having another bilingual judge sitting on the bench. I do not think that there would be members inside the Chamber that would oppose that. Because there was no potential candidate on that particular list, it then limits the government from having a bilingual person added to the list. [interjection] Well, those are the types of things which you should be raising during the issue. If you are trying to say that it was rigged, that is what you should have been talking about during the matter of privilege: demonstrate that it was rigged. You cannot say that it was rigged because the Minister of Justice has a discussion with the Chief Judge; they talk about the need for an additional bilingual judge or the potential, that there should be a bilingual candidate on the list of seven, and all of a sudden there is no bilingual candidate. I, too, would be disappointed if I was the Minister of Justice. I understand that the Minister of Justice did not say that he is outright rejecting the list. What he was hoping to see was a bilingual candidate. If that bilingual candidate would have been his best buddy, or his best friend, or a strong Tory, or something of this nature and he was the only individual--[interjection] Madam Speaker, it is being suggested to me that I am getting to the point--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster, this is not a time for debate with the opposition members. This is a time to establish whether a prima facie case has been made for a matter of privilege.

The honourable member for Inkster, to quickly sum up his remarks.

Mr. Lamoureux: To quickly sum up, Madam Speaker, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) said it from his seat: they will give me the notes next time. Well, those notes are what should have maybe been read into the record so that MLAs such as myself would be able to make a better decision, but based on what has been said today on the record from the official opposition, I would conclude by saying that yes, the Minister of Justice has been confusing in some of the answers that he has been giving, and that is to give him the benefit of the doubt. I do believe that the Minister of Justice is trying to fill the need of, at the very least, providing to cabinet a bilingual candidate. There was no individual who has expressed to me inside this Chamber that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) was trying to get on to that list. That, therefore, tells me that he is not rigging it, and that was in essence the core issue in which the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had talked about. So, for that reason, Madam Speaker, I could not support this matter of privilege.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege is indeed a very serious matter, and I will take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities and return to the House with a ruling.

* (1355)