Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to change the Estimates sequence in Room 255 to Environment until further notice? [agreed]
* (1510)
Mr. McCrae: I have a motion to move, which will require the leave of the House, and it has to do with Bill 6 and its French title.
I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), that the French title of Bill 6, The Animal Liability and Consequential Amendments Act, as it appeared in the Order Paper, and subsequently when it received first reading and second reading, be altered to read Loi sur la responsabilité à l'égard des animaux et modifications corrélatives, and that both the first reading and second reading stages be now deemed to have been passed under the correct title.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), 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.
* (1520)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Edward Helwer): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
When the committee last sat, the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) had 11 minutes remaining in speaking to the main motion.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Chairperson, we know that institutions that we create in society are moved by people, by human beings who are fallible and imperfect. They forget. They even forget what they said before and what they say after, and there are many controversies as to what the minister actually said.
Mr. Chairperson, Gerry McAlpine, in the Chair
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has been counting how many versions there are, and, apparently, there were three: first, that it was the honourable minister who said that it was the Chief Judge who first initiated the idea of adding names to the list. Then in another statement the honourable minister said that he is the one who initiated the idea of adding a name to the list of seven recommended by the committee. Then, finally, he made another statement saying that they jointly had the idea of solving the problem by jointly recommending adding names.
Whatever are the facts will have to be clarified. We are not perfect human beings. We commit mistakes. We forget. Sometimes even reporters do not actually capture the facts. They are supposed to be answering the questions who, what, where, when and how, but sometimes even the newspaper correspondents are writing things and publishing things that we as people who utter statements do not even say, so there might be confusion as to what really had been said and whether what had been said coincides with what actually happened.
The only other proper way to resolve all this controversy is to have, as I have indicated before, an independent person who comes from outside our jurisdiction who can make an inquiry as to the facts and, therefore, clarify the issue.
At this point, since I am running out of time, I would like to make a summary statement. It is very important that we should always say what we mean and we should always mean what we say. In other words, we should state what we believe is the truth, what we see as the truth because it is only the truth that can justify our making any statement.
An Honourable Member: The truth will set you free.
Mr. Santos: The honourable reverend here said seek the truth and the truth shall make you free. That is a direct quotation from the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is our duty as human beings in general? I think it has been said a long time ago by the prophet Micah. God "hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" There are three duties here of human beings in general, to act justly, to uphold justice whenever it is in question, to be fair to everyone, to give everyone his due, not to take advantage of any person but to render to every man what is due. It has been said a long time ago, justice is the tendency to render to every person what is his due.
The second duty is, of course, to love mercy, to be compassionate to those who are in disadvantageous positions because we may, ourselves, find ourselves sometimes in a disadvantageous position, and we will be grateful if somebody else will have mercy and compassion for us.
Finally, we should be humble knowing that we are not perfect human beings. We cannot in any way pretend to speak the mind of another because that is not within the realm of our mortal capacity. Even angels, probably, cannot ascertain the mind of human beings; I do not know.
So we are saying here let us do what is right. Let the facts speak for themselves, but let the facts be stated first and be sought by one who is a disinterested party by means of an independent inquiry. That can only happen if the honourable minister will step down as Minister of Justice because while he is there, there can be no independent inquiry because he will be in charge. It is as simple as that.
Whatever is the truth has to come out. If the truth will not come out, there will always be some doubts, and whenever there are doubts, there will be misgivings. Whenever there are misgivings, there are some questions, some innuendo, some rumour, some mixing of facts with myth and fiction. That cannot be done. That cannot be allowed if we are to restore the confidence of the citizen in the judicial system.
It is a fact of our system of government that the citizens should have the fullest confidence in the impartiality and lack of bias of the judicial process, particularly the appointment of judges in our provincial court system. Although the province constitutionally has administration of the system of justice, the real appointment, of course, is made by another jurisdiction in Ottawa, but the recommending authority will, of course, be the provincial level of government with respect to provincial judges.
We sometimes say that judges should be independent of the political process, but if we open our eyes, we see ex-politicians now sitting on the benches. They are rewarded by the governing party in power with judicial appointments. [interjection] The honourable Minister of Seniors said Liberals, but I can see Justice Sterling Lyon there in the judiciary. How did he get there?
So you cannot say it is good for the goose, not good for the gander. Everybody is doing it, but if everybody is doing it, it does not mean it is legal or moral. What we are trying to preserve is the integrity, the separateness of the judiciary from the political, active government of the day, and at least while we are behaving as participants in the institutional role that we play, we would like to make these two judicial branches of government as autonomous and as independent as possible because if they are intermixed, then they will say there is political interference, there is political bias, there is preferences, there is nepotism, all kinds of accusations creeping into the judicial system, destroying the confidence of the citizen in their judiciary.
* (1530)
When the citizen no longer respects either the judiciary nor the political branches of government, then the whole system of government becomes unstable, and when it is unstable, there will be no peace, there is no order, there is no security of either person or property, because if we ourselves are the ones who violate the rules, how can we expect the citizens to obey the rules? We lead by example. Only by our behaviour, by the things we do that we speak, because it is not the rhetoric that counts, it is our behaviour as officials of government, both elected and appointed, that is emulated by the citizens as modelled in our democratic system of government.
I do not know if anyone can assert that he or she alone can know the facts. It is a matter sometimes of observation by an independent observer, because we are all coloured by the values that we have in our system, the values that we inherited in our cultural group, the values that we have taken from our educational background, the values that we absorb and imbibe from our friends and associates. All of these are looking glasses coloured in our own way, so when we look at the phenomenon, we interpret it according to our value system, and different value systems, of course, result in different interpretations.
The only way to settle that kind of difference, honest difference of interpretation and honest difference of opinion, is to ask for a third party, a third person who is not involved in the controversy to make the observation, to ask the questions, to seek answers and stay on the factual level.
Of course you will say even this arbitrator will have his own values. Of course he does, but then his values are not at all tangential to the controversy at hand because he is a third person. He does not know anything at all about what happened. He has not heard any statement from the House. He has not heard any statement from the honourable minister. He will only conduct the inquiry and ask questions appropriately from the proper person who has participated in the series of events that we are trying to reconstruct as a factual sequence of what actually happened in this controversial thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do want to address this motion for the next period of time--
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Just for clarification, unlike the usual process of Estimates, I understand that this is a motion before the committee, and therefore a member can only speak once to the motion.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. Just for the clarification of the committee, we have agreed to rotate back and forth. A member can speak as many times as he or she may want to speak to the motion on the basis of rotation back and forth across the table.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue with your response.
Mr. Toews: I know the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) raises some very interesting issues, and I would like to deal with some of those. Unfortunately, the member for Broadway has an incredible lack of understanding of even the process required in respect of the appointment of judges, provincial judges.
He suggests that the appointment is a federal one. Now, that indicates exactly how little he knows about the process, and I am surprised he would even be speaking in this kind of a manner. For him to suggest that this is a federal appointment simply does not make any sense. This is not the first time that the member for Broadway has exhibited a complete lack of understanding of the legal process, and perhaps maybe--
Mr. Santos: Mr. Chairperson, a point of clarification, I am talking about appointments--
Mr. Chairperson: Is the honourable member for Broadway speaking on a point of order?
Mr. Santos: A point of clarification. When I say federal appointment, I am talking about the Court of First Instance. I am not talking about--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. There is no point of clarification here or a point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue with your response.
Mr. Toews: So he indicates that the process is that there is a nominating committee that is set up provincially, but the appointment is federal. Again, the member has absolutely no understanding of what the process is.
I would like to just deal with the kind of comments that the member makes. He seems to think that even the matters on record can only be used to justify his position. That is clearly not so. I have given my answers in the House, and I stand by them. I say they are consistent. I say they outline what happened. Unfortunately, the member has a tendency to make speeches and to say things without knowing the facts.
This is not the first time he has attempted to do this in a very clumsy and incorrect way. The last time he did it, he stood up in a matter of privilege, in the House, in respect of Bill C-68. Now, here he spoke on an issue regarding what the duties of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General are. I think this is really relevant. This is a man who is speaking in support of a motion to ask the Minister of Justice to resign. So what does he say about the issue on Bill C-68? He made specific reference to a newspaper article where the article quoted me as stating that I would not enforce Bill C-68. So, in a very similar self-righteous way, he stood up in the House and pontificated about what the duties of the Minister of Justice are, again understanding absolutely nothing about the process, consistent with the way he generally speaks on these issues, and certainly the way he has demonstrated his lack of knowledge today.
I find this unfortunate. If you are going to make accusations, be accurate, at least in your basic facts. In the Bill C-68 situation, he said the Minister of Justice's responsibility is to enforce the law, and joining in this chorus was, of course, the former NDP Attorney General, Roland Penner, who, like the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), did not read the legislation either, but that has never stopped that particular individual from pontificating about the law. He, too, indicated--the former Attorney General--that it was the Attorney General's obligation to enforce the law. Absolutely correct, but in speaking on that issue demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of our federal system and the role of the Attorney General in that federal system.
Now, one of the things that the member for Broadway, and, apparently, the former Attorney General, Mr. Penner, did not understand was that criminal law and criminal process is passed by the federal government, falls exclusively within their bailiwick. The provincial attorney general is responsible for the administration of justice. There is no constitutional requirement for a provincial attorney general to enforce any federal laws. There is no constitutional requirement at all, whether it is the Criminal Code, whether it is the Young Offenders Act, whether it is the Bail Reform Act. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear on that, and it arose in respect of a matter of the Narcotics Control Act.
In that particular case, the federal Attorney General was prosecuting a case under the Narcotics Control Act, and defence counsel raised a motion saying that the prosecutor--a federal prosecutor--could not prosecute because the Narcotics Control Act was a criminal offence, and only a provincial attorney general could prosecute a criminal offence.
* (1540)
The Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear. A provincial attorney general only prosecutes criminal law made by the federal Parliament on the basis of delegation by the federal Parliament to that provincial attorney general. Not a constitutional responsibility. It is a delegation, and, as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) must know, any delegation, if it is not a responsibility, can be refused. So, in the area of the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act and the Bail Reform Act, those have been matters that have been delegated to the provincial attorneys general, and the provincial attorneys general have, in fact, accepted that delegation.
Now, the member for Broadway says their duty is to enforce the law. True enough, but under our division of powers there is no requirement to enforce federal laws. There is a voluntary acceptance of that by provincial attorneys general, and so, here, the member for Broadway, in speaking on C-68, stands up and says: when the Minister of Justice said he would not enforce or administer Bill C-68--even if we admit that that is criminal law for the purpose of our discussion, and suggesting that the Minister of Justice somehow breached some kind of a legal or a constitutional requirement, again, he was wrong. He simply did not understand the process.
I am not faulting the member for not understanding the process, because he is not a lawyer. He is not expected to know that, but if you do choose to speak out publicly on that, perhaps there is some indication that you should learn something about it, and, indeed, at least read the act. Did the member read Bill C-68? I am certain he did not because if he did--and I know the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) took the same position as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) at that time, indicating essentially that if they were in power, that is, the NDP were in power, they would enforce Bill C-68 if it was constitutional. Well, the member for Dauphin is wrong.
Mr. Mackintosh: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, the matter before the committee is a very serious matter of the minister's involvement and interference in the judicial appointment process under The Provincial Court Act and the call by the opposition for his resignation.
The issues that the minister is dealing with, similar to what the minister's position was on Thursday, are not relevant to the matters before the committee, extremely serious matters. For him to get into an issue about gun control today or about the payment of judges last Thursday is not relevant to the matter before the committee, and I ask you, Mr. Chair, to call the minister, as is the practice, to order and ask him to be relevant to the motion before the committee.
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, they have indicated that the role of the Minister of Justice is to do certain things and on the basis of that then say that because he did not do that, he should resign. What I am trying to argue here, and I think right on point, is that they do not understand the basic role of the Minister of Justice, and this point which was specifically raised by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) is being addressed by me in the context of the overall motion.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. I think it is a dispute over the facts. I would remind members that we do have a motion before the committee and that I have been listening very carefully and trying to follow this.
I have been fairly liberal with all members with regard to this aspect, but I would remind members when they are speaking that they do address the motion that is before us at the committee.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to complete your response.
Mr. Toews: So the issue of the role of the Minister of Justice is very relevant to the motion. If you are going to ask a Minister of Justice to resign because of certain things, you must understand what the role of the minister is in our federal system. So the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), not having read Bill C-68 but never at a loss to express his opinions on things he does not know, stood up in the House and spoke that the minister should resign because he is not following his constitutional duty to enforce Bill C-68.
Again, if the member had even read the statute--let us leave aside the issue of whether there is a constitutional obligation to enforce Bill C-68. Leaving that aside, the legislation itself on the face of it, clearly, for anybody to read, a layperson and lawyer alike stated clearly that the minister is the minister designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or if the Lieutenant Governor fails to designate a minister, then it is the Minister of Justice, federally.
So right in the statute, unlike the Criminal Code, unlike the Young Offenders Act, there was a specific right, a statutorily recognized right that there was no obligation on the provincial Attorney General to enforce that law. Did the member ever come back and say, you know, I did not read the act, I was just saying that because Roland Penner said that and it sounded like a good thing to say? But, no, the member makes his statements without knowing what the facts are, without knowing what the role of the Minister of Justice is and, in the same way, continues in this matter.
The second point related to Bill C-68. How was a prosecution commenced under that act? That should have given the member some indication. Did he look at that? Obviously not. He never read the statute because it was right there. It said that the person who would be swearing any information for an offence under C-68 was a federal official as opposed to a provincial official, and, as the member must understand, in a federal system where there are equal partners, provincial and federal, each having prosecutorial powers, when a statute specifically says it is the federal official who lays the information, that should have given the member a clue that there was no requirement on the part of a provincial Attorney General to lay information much less prosecute.
So, again, perhaps the member should consider his own statements in the past before he comes to these kinds of committees and demands certain actions be taken. Perhaps he relied on the legal advice that Mr. Penner gave him, and maybe Mr. Penner did not read the statute, and that is unfortunate, if Mr. Penner did not read the statute.
But I wanted to continue about some other matters that I believe are very relevant to this particular issue, the issue of the resignation of the provincial Minister of Justice related to an activity dealing with the appointment of provincial judges made by the provincial cabinet. This is not dealing with an issue dealing with a nominating committee that are putting up names for a federal cabinet. This is a provincial cabinet, and, unfortunately, the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) did not seem to understand that issue.
In any event, one of the things I think that our government has been very, very mindful of is the issue of the role of the Minister of Justice, and this then gives me the opportunity for a few minutes more to discuss how important a role it is. One of the things that should be known is that I can see how the member for Broadway--
* (1550)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have recognized the Minister of Justice, and I do hear some conversations within the committee. I would ask that members please refrain from doing that. If you wish to, you can have your conversations at the back of the room.
Mr. Toews: I know that the member must find the whole area confusing, so I think it is important then to delineate what some of the responsibilities are of the Minister of Justice.
One thing that our government has been very consistent on, among other matters, is the importance of supplementing federal legislation where we believe that the federal government has not been as expansive as it should in its area of constitutional expertise in order to address a particular problem, so what we have done in this government and the Ministry of Justice, including my predecessors, both the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), is we have indicated on a consistent basis that we will within our own area of jurisdiction supplement what the federal government has refused to do in its area of jurisdiction.
The first example, I think, that one can point to was the member for Brandon West, when he was Minister of Justice, believed that there were serious shortcomings in the way--or not so much in the way, but rather in the laws themselves relating to impaired driving, and the minister brought into the House a bill which has been seen as a leader across Canada, and that, of course, relates to the--
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I have referenced the time very carefully when my colleague raised a question of relevancy. I believe that is was 3:42 when that was raised; 3:43 perhaps. Since that time, the minister has managed to address virtually everything except the issue of his interference in the selection of judges. I know it is embarrassing for him to have to defend the indefensible, but we are now wandering over to the area of impaired driving and his predecessor's role.
I would ask you to call him to order, ask him to address the matter before the committee and to stop wandering over all the judicial territory that he can find.
Mr. Toews: Well, I am simply getting to the point where, again, it was stated that the Minister of Justice did not understand what his or her role was at that time, so the situation that I am going to refer to specifically addresses the role of the Minister of Justice.
As indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) has raised the whole issue about what the role of the Minister of Justice is as an essential underpinning to his argument that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) should resign, and I believe I should be entitled to address that specific issue.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order.
I would remind the committee that with a motion of this nature, there is a wide range of discussion. I believe the minister is--and I am listening carefully and with all members here in terms of making their point. They are making comments that are not necessarily relative to this, but they are speaking around the motion. I will allow this to continue but remind all honourable members that we do have a motion before, and they should stay relevant to that.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue.
Mr. Toews: Thank you, I will bear that in mind. So at that time the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) brought in a bill that related to administrative suspensions of licences that occurred essentially at roadside when someone blew 0.08. The argument as that matter came up to court was that in this situation the police were acting as police, judge and jury in suspending the licence. Similar arguments were raised in respect of the seizure of motor vehicles, and, again, at that time, and I recall a specific cartoon, the Minister of Justice--it was a cartoon in an editorial page where there was a picture of a tow truck with a hook and the hook was hooking a car. The car said something like Charter of Rights, obviously suggesting that the Minister of Justice at the time was hooking the Charter and ignoring the law.
I know the Minister of Justice at that time was assailed by virtually every lawyer in this province.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is ironic that in the course of a debate on a most serious issue affecting not just this minister's career and career path but that of the government, the minister is engaging in irrelevant debate. I think, if anything, this further erodes public confidence and the confidence of this side of the House in the minister's capabilities to continue in his office, but I have to make the assertion that it appears obvious to this side that this minister has also negotiated a gag on himself. In other words, that agreement with the Chief Judge is also attempting to subvert the role of this Assembly, this committee and the public's right to know.
Perhaps the minister will want to respond to that because that is the charge we are making now.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* (1600)
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to continue.
I think that kind of example is important to bear in mind when considering this particular situation. So, having listened to the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), I would submit that he has really contributed nothing to this debate, other than bringing, again, erroneous facts, as he has done on other occasions when he quoted Scripture and spoke in a very self-righteous way about what he felt was appropriate.
I know that, in listening to him, his quoting of the Scripture is quite accurate. The member understands the letter very, very well. I am sure that if we wanted to debate religious principles, I would be more than happy to do that with the member for Broadway. There are other verses and chapters that we might want to discuss as being relevant to this particular situation and indeed his particular conduct, but I think that if we got into that kind of a debate, it would not really help our discussion of the substantive motion here today.
So rather than relying on facts or matters of which he knows nothing about--because I think I have demonstrated that in terms of his past actions and statements, and indeed today he has demonstrated, again, he did not even understand the basic issue that we are talking about here, that this relates to the appointment of judges at first instance, provincial judges who fall under the constitutional jurisdiction, not of the federal government as he stated, but the provincial government.
For the member's benefit, there are two levels of trial court in this province. There is the Provincial Court whose members are appointed by the province, and there is the Court of Queen's Bench whose members are what they call Section 96 judges; that is, appointed by the federal cabinet. So even though both courts have certain original jurisdictions in the sense of being trial courts, one court, the Provincial Court, is known as a tribunal of inferior jurisdiction. That is not to slight the judges or the court in any way. It simply refers to the fact that their jurisdiction is statutorially based. The other one is the Court of Queen's Bench which has inherent jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction can only be limited by statute.
The issue that we are talking about here on the nominating committee has got nothing to do with judges in terms of the appointment process. Yes, we are appointing judges, but the chair of the committee is not acting as a judge. The chair of the committee is acting as the chair of the nominating process, not as a Chief Judge or as any judge of the court, nor is the other judge on this committee acting as a judge. We are not dealing with issues of judicial independence because, in my opinion, if we had members of the judiciary acting on a nominating committee as members of the judiciary, I would think that we are running into a precariously dangerous situation, and that involves the intermingling of the executive function and the judicial function.
It is very, very clear in our area of constitutional law, or under our Constitution, that there is a clear separation of powers. The judiciary does not interfere with the executive powers nor does the executive interfere with the judicial powers. So when a Chief Judge is acting on the nominating committee, she or he does not act as a judge. Again, the member is trying to mislead people here by suggesting that the Chief Judge is acting as a judge, clearly wrong, and the other judge, acting on the nominating committee, is not acting as a judge. They are acting in an administrative capacity.
So the member, in order to confuse the issue, deliberately, I think--
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, this minister has been abusive of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) for the last 30 minutes, and he has now gone past parliamentarily acceptable language by stating that he believes that the member for Broadway deliberately attempted to do some misleading--he used the word "mislead" and then he used synonymously "confuse."
I ask you to call him to order and to stop his abusive treatment of an honourable member and to recognize that any impugning of motives, that is, "deliberately," is not acceptable in parliamentary language. This minister should get on with the substance of the matter here, which is did he interfere in the process that is covered by The Provincial Court Act in regard to the appointment of judges?
Mr. Chairperson: In regard to the honourable member's point of order, I will take that under advisement and review Hansard to make sure that what the honourable member is suggesting is done so correctly. The honourable minister, to continue. You have--
Mr. Toews: Just on that point. I mean, if I have suggested--
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.
Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, if I have indicated that he has deliberately confused, I think the thrust of my entire argument is that this member has not been deliberately confusing. In fact, he just does not understand, and so maybe I should remove the word "deliberate" because he is simply confusing because he does not understand. So I would be satisfied with just simply a deletion of the word "deliberate."
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister for that.
* * *
Mr. Sale: I have listened with some interest for the last half hour to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) failing to address any of the issues that have been raised before this House and in this committee in regard to the call for his resignation. I find it dismaying, to say the least, that a minister from whom I expect a great deal in terms of ethical standards and ability to be accountable for behaviour has not been attempting, in my hearing, to be accountable at all and to answer any of the serious allegations that have been raised against him.
I find that disturbing in the extreme because of all of the ministries of the Crown that I hold in high, high regard--and I hold them all in high regard--but I hold the Minister of Justice in highest regard, because she or he is charged ultimately with the administration--and in cases where, as he has pointed out--he willingly undertakes the enforcement of criminal and civil statutes in Manitoba. The only thing that stands between a civilized society and the law of the jungle is the rule of law, and the person charged with the administration and implementation of that holds a most high office, and yet this current minister appears to trivialize the motion before the committee by excursions into matters that have little to do with the issue at hand.
* (1610)
The issue at hand, quite simply, is this, Mr. Chairperson. Sometime in the week preceding Friday, May 1, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) received, in his capacity as Minister of Justice responsible for the appointing of Provincial Court judges, a list. He apparently reviewed that list and was angry, angry enough that on the weekend following Friday, May 1, 2 and 3, he called the Chief Judge, angry enough that in private social events he was heard to complain bitterly about the inadequacy of the list that he had been given. That in itself constitutes a breach of his duties to keep confidential all such matters, but he complained.
Then he met with the Chief Judge on Monday, May 4, and we have been treated to three or four versions of what was said in that meeting. I believe what was said was fairly reported by the Chief Judge to other members of that committee when she met with them and that Mr. Joubert and Colleen Suche have absolutely nothing to gain by misrepresenting what they were told by the Chief Judge, and they have everything to gain by maintaining the integrity of the appointment process, and that they acted in respect of the highest understanding of their calling as members of this committee to recommend a slate of candidates and to nominate and to put that forward to the minister. Mr. Joubert and Ms. Suche acted in the best tradition of the legal profession by defending a committee from the administrations of the minister who was attempting to interfere with that committee.
I would ask the minister to consider, Mr. Chairperson, through you, why would the head of the Law Society and the head of the bar want to give a misleading or an incorrect or an incomplete or a deliberately wrong view of what the minister had done? These are sworn officers of the court. These are not people whose opinions or statements should be taken lightly by the public, by the minister or by anybody else.
But, apparently, according to the minister, there were some conversations which took place with Judge Webster that were the most convoluted that I can possibly imagine. First of all, the minister does not like the fact that there was no bilingual name on the list. Now one can speculate as to whether he knew that only one of the 22 candidates interviewed was bilingual or not, but he certainly knew that a Tory--former nominee for a candidacy in St. Vital--person had applied for the job. It was certainly within his capacity to understand that his name did not appear on the list because he had the list. Maybe that is why he was so angry on the weekend when he phoned Judge Webster.
So he first attempts to tell the House, I need a bilingual judge, and there was not any name on there that was a bilingual judge, and we talked about this Judge Webster and I, and we had done that over a number of times, and by golly, she should have someone on that list. Well, she did not. She did not at least in part because the ad, approved by the minister, did not call for a bilingual judge. It was not one of the terms of reference. Other ads for the appointment of bilingual judges had appeared. So if this was such a major concern, then obviously there was an oversight in the ad.
The minister then offered the feeble defence that he needed a new French-speaking judge because he only had two and one was off busy doing a report and the other was going on leave. Well, that house of cards fell down around the minister's head. The report to which he refers is completed. There is no problem with the judge doing that report. His work is virtually finished, and the other French judge who is going on leave, well, you know, those who are fabricating stories often hide behind a sliver of truth, and there is a sliver of truth in the minister's assertion that the other French judge is going on leave. He is in a year to 18 months, not this week, not next month, not in the summer, not in the fall, not next winter but a year to 18 months from now, clearly sufficient time to have a proper selection process in which bilingualism was a criteria.
The minister had conversation with Judge Webster about this issue of bilingual judges, and what he is asking the public to believe is that the Chief Judge of this province did not know The Provincial Court Act and that she was prepared to take a list back and in clear contravention of Section 3.1(4) add some names to a list of nominees. The minister apparently asked for two. The minister must think that Manitobans are fools, that they would believe that their senior Provincial Court judge would not understand the act and would offer to go back to her committee and break the law. The minister must think that we are fools or he thinks that Judge Webster is a fool, that she would agree to undertake the breaking of the law. That is what he wanted Manitobans to believe, that Judge Webster had agreed to take the request for more names back to the committee, when she knew full well that that was not possible.
In fact, what the judge tells the committee happened was that the minister was furious that there was not a bilingual name among the seven put forward. In other words, that his candidate was not there and so he was not going to accept that list. He wanted them to go back and add the two names that he wanted added. Now whether the judge put forward those names by name or whether the minister did is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is this minister thinks that Manitobans are fools, that the opposition are fools, that he can patronize and disparage the remarks of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and that all will just be fine, when, in fact, the house of cards that is tumbling down around him is asking Manitobans to believe that their chief provincial judge willingly undertook to break the law.
Because that is the only construction that can be put on the weak defence that the minister made last week in the House and then offered in the form of a statement not signed by the Chief Judge but only by himself. The minister believes that the Chief Judge of Manitoba would undertake to break the law so that he could get a political appointee on the bench.
Mr. Chairperson, someone is lying in this whole series of events, and given the minister's own construction in the House, on the media, there are only two choices. Either the Chief Judge is lying and went to the committee and concocted a story quoting the minister, or the minister is lying. It is possible, of course, that they are both lying, but I think it is highly unlikely.
I think, in fact, that the Chief Judge did what she was told to do by the minister which was to take this damn list back and get two more names on it, one of them bilingual at least. She went back and reported her conversation. I think, in doing so, she did the right thing because she reported to her colleagues the minister's attempt to interfere with the judicial selection process, to change the rules to add a bilingual judge which was not required. To change the rules in one series of his discussions about what actually happened, he actually suggested, well, maybe we should appoint three judges this time. It does not matter that the Order-in-Council said two, it does not matter that the ad said two. We will just get your committee's agreement. We will go back and make it three, and I think the Chief Judge did the right thing.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): A point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I was listening very intently to my honourable friend's comments opposite and he may have said a word that I would believe would be unparliamentary when he indicated that the Minister of Justice directed the Chief Judge to take this damn list back. I think that is not the kind of language I believe should be used in committee or in this Legislature.
We listened to my honourable friend raise several points of order about the minister's actions towards the member for Broadway, and I would venture to guess that my honourable friend across the way is being much more abusive to the Minister of Justice than any comments I heard the Minister of Justice make about any of his colleagues, so I take great offence to that kind of language being used and I would like you to rule on whether the comments that were parliamentary or not and if not parliamentary, certainly withdraw them.
* (1620)
Mr. Sale: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I have no problem with withdrawing the word "damn" if the minister finds that offensive. It is certainly a biblical word and one that has been used many times in debate, but no problem. We can call it that darn list if you would like, if that will make you feel better, so I will withdraw the word "damn."
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the member for Crescentwood for that. While we are on this point, there have been some things that I have noted, that the honourable member for Crescentwood did reference the word "lying," and although it has been ruled unparliamentary in some cases, I would suggest that all honourable members choose their words very carefully when they are referencing the remarks in this committee.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood, to continue with your statement.
Mr. Sale: I want to address exactly what you just raised, and I think it is a very important point. When we are looking at the issue of the Chief Judge going back to her committee, in her capacity as chair, and telling her committee what Mr. Joubert and Ms. Suche told the press, the public, she told them, we have no alternative but to conclude that either the minister instructed the judge to do this, in which case one cannot put any other construction on his statements in the House than that he is, in fact, at variance with the truth, or that the Chief Judge is.
The facts do not support any other interpretation, because the Chief Judge clearly told her colleagues on the committee her understanding that the minister not only was angry about the list but that he wished to have more names added. The minister, for his part, has denied that. It is not conceivable to me that the truth can lie in between. The truth has to lie on one side or the other. Either he said it or he did not, because as I have pointed out, for us to believe that the Chief Judge is ignorant of The Court Act and is ignorant of the process of the appointing of provincial judges is surely asking us to believe something of the chief provincial judge which is inconceivable, especially since she is the chairperson of the committee.
So, Mr. Chairperson, I think it is very important that the minister address the issues of this motion calling for his resignation, and he has utterly failed to do that. He has not responded with any detail about his conversation with Judge Webster. He has simply done what I think would even to him have been unthinkable before he had entered into this particular path, namely, probably with some consultation with others, but maybe not, he initiated a process of the negotiation of the truth. He hired a lawyer, a private-sector lawyer, either directly to Judge Webster or through his private-sector lawyer or through some other intermediary such as the deputy minister, he suggested Judge Webster do the same. And the two lawyers would sit in a room, rather like a kind of arbitration process and they would negotiate with each other until a satisfactory statement could be arrived at, which interpreted what had been said in the meeting between the minister and the judge.
Now, the minister may be so out of touch with his colleagues in the legal profession and the judiciary that he is unable to see what is plainly an offensive process, in which the senior minister responsible for the system of judicial administration and enforcement and the senior provincial official responsible for sitting on the bench between them hire lawyers to sit down and negotiate what was said in a meeting. Then they issue a statement signed by not both parties, but one party, in which the minister apologizes for any confusion that might have arisen, but fails to clarify why he would tell the House one day that he suggested three appointees, why the judge would tell her colleagues on the committee that the minister wanted two more names added, why he would do any of those things is not even touched on in this statement. So, by refusing to be forthright, this minister has now pulled into the mesh Judge Webster, negotiated a gag order by which she would agree not to speak any further on this issue, and apparently by which he would not either, because since his statement in the House he has said nothing about his conduct in this matter.
Now, let us look at what happened in Ontario. Here we have a minister responsible, Mr. Runciman, essentially having breached a statute through the naming of the mother of a young offender in a throne speech, which, of course, technically Hilary Weston also breached by reading the throne speech and presumably the Premier breached by moving it and having it read, but Mr. Runciman did the right thing. He said, yes, there is apparently a breach here, and I am going to have the RCMP investigate it and report back, and because I have some respect for the office I hold, I will step aside until that inquiry is finished. Perhaps he will reassume his duties, perhaps he will not, but at least he goes out with honour because he had the courage to let the light of day shine on his activities.
This minister has not the courage to let the light of day shine on anything. He puts members of the bar in a closed room and negotiates the truth. He changes his story in the House three times, in terms of the things that have happened, and then after his pitiful denial last week he will not even speak further about the issue because apparently he too has agreed that he will not speak. So now we have a double gag, a gag on the minister, a gag on the judge, the simple expedient that Mr. Joubert and Ms. Suche were not speaking the truth in this matter, and I have no doubt that they spoke the truth of what they heard. A simple expedient is an inquiry. It need not take long and it need not cost a lot. It simply has to determine who said what to whom on which occasion and whether or not a statute was breached.
* (1630)
If the minister has any, any scintilla of concern for the office that he holds, he would have stepped aside a week ago. He would have called for an inquiry and he would have done the honourable thing and waited for its outcome. If he speaks the truth then he would have been vindicated. Mr. Joubert and Ms. Suche would have been seen to have been incorrect, Judge Webster perhaps to have acted inappropriately. But he did not do that, and he still refuses to do that.
Our laws offer an opportunity for inquiries. Under parliamentary tradition, if a minister, it does not matter which minister it is, breaches or is thought to have breached an act where there is substantive evidence that he did so or she did so--at least there is doubt obviously in the minds of two senior members of the legal profession as to whether this minister breached an act. Under parliamentary tradition stretching back hundreds of years, he would have stepped aside, but he does not because the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province has a fetish that he has never lost a minister. In that fetish he is costing government, he is costing all elected officials, he is costing the judicial system of this province a high, high price for the maintenance of his petty pride that he has never lost a minister.
Well, there are times when every government should lose a minister, and one of those times is when the conduct of the minister is called into such question that the whole administration of justice is brought into disrepute. That is what we are facing today in this matter. The minister could show himself to be a person of courage and integrity if he wished and say I trust the judicial process, I trust an external authority to verify what was said and what was done, what was not said and not done. I have confidence in the process. He wants Manitobans to have confidence in the administration of justice, but he does not have confidence. He is afraid that what would be found out would, in fact, bear out Mr. Joubert's and Ms. Suche's claims and not his own, not his own that he has changed so many times.
This is a sad, sad day for Manitoba when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has not sufficient integrity to resign his office while an inquiry is called, when he pulls the Chief Judge of the province into a back room with two lawyers to negotiate the truth, when he changes his story three times before the House and when last week he took part in a motion of closure, one of surely the highest or lowest comedies that this House has ever seen, where a member of the government and a minister of the Crown attempt to move closure on the debate about the resignation of a minister.
They have their colleagues in committee vote for it unanimously, and then when they go into the House to have a recorded vote, surprise, surprise. Not only do they not even vote for their own motion, none of their colleagues do either. This government engaged in the incredible spectacle of voting with the opposition to continue debate on a motion that it had voted in committee to close. This minister and his colleague that he had move this motion looked ridiculous, and with every passing moment they look worse.
They have the option of doing the honourable thing, letting the light of day shine on this matter for all to see, and, if, in fact, the minister has spoken the truth at all times, I am confident that he would be vindicated. I would think that if he had spoken the truth at all times he would be confident that he would be vindicated. But apparently he lacks confidence in the very system that he is charged to administer and to uphold, a system that could hold an inquiry, could ascertain the truth, and could report to the public. It is an incredible comment on the administration of justice in this province when the minister charged with that administration is so cowardly that he cannot trust the system to find out the truth of a matter that calls for his resignation. It is a sad day. It is a sad day, and I am very sorry to be watching the spectacle of the minister even lacking the fortitude to debate his own actions but instead engaged in long excursions into federal and other matters that bear no relation to the issue before the House.
So I do not take much pleasure out of this situation because my own constituents have to trust the justice system. They are required to trust the justice system. They do not have any choice, but when they see the minister responsible for the system unable to trust it, they must wonder whether there are two sets of rules, whether the minister knows something they do not know, that the system cannot be trusted to find the truth. I doubt that.
I think the system can be trusted to find the truth, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is not letting Manitobans understand that, because he clearly does not think that the system can be trusted to find his truth, or else he would do the honourable thing, as this motion requires. He would resign and let daylight shine on his actions, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Well, I have listened for the last half hour to, also, an accumulation of excursions. I think this is what the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) was indicating of our minister about going on excursions. My goodness, the member for Crescentwood has certainly taken us around all over the place. I guess the thing that I find interesting and somewhat astounding is that certainly the minister has put a lot of information on the record and, in fact, has been supporting the information that the members opposite were looking for, giving them that information.
You know, when you look at the resolution that they have in place, I think that they are going on a wild goose chase and--[interjection] Oh, the member for Crescentwood wants me to keep a straight face. Well, on the other hand, I could laugh about this because I think the members opposite have come up with something that is relatively and very ridiculous. I will be right honest with you. The member also indicated about how his constituents have made certain comments. I went out in my community, and my constituents--I would suggest you come and talk to my constituents, and you ask them about this issue. In fact, a number of them asked when the NDP were coming into the area, they would like to talk to them.
An Honourable Member: We were there last year.
Mr. Dyck: I know you were and you left very quickly, so, yes, and I know exactly where you were. They also indicated to me that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) had been there and some of the questions that had been posed.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would remind the members that they make their comments through the Chair. I have recognized the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) to speak on this matter, and I am hearing other noises and voices beyond the honourable member for Pembina. I would ask all honourable members to respect that right of every member of this committee.
The honourable member for Pembina, to continue with your response.
Mr. Dyck: Yes, I did feel interrupted here, certainly, so, yes, I would like to continue in this debate, and certainly, again, we have heard at lengths some of the allegations that were made towards our Minister of Justice by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). I am astounded. I am surprised at the allegations that were made. It is not the same man that I know, and I think that certainly they are on a hunting trip. He was talking about being embarrassed, and I think certainly that they as members opposite are embarrassed because they have gone on a hunting trip and are coming up with nothing. They are going back empty-handed, and so they are trying to continue the comments that they are making. They are trying to continue on the route that they have chosen to take.
So I want to indicate, first of all, my support for the minister. Certainly, I do not support the resolution that is out there, but I want to do this with giving information about things that are taking place within my area, within the Pembina constituency, which is in support of the things that our minister is doing.
* (1640)
First of all, I had an opportunity, and I will be mentioning this a little later on in my discussion, just a while ago to be a part of the community policing program, which is something that the minister is supporting and is supporting within the Pembina constituency and, more specifically, is really giving the background and the support in Morden. I talked to the constable who is involved in this, and, certainly, Constable Gerry Poole is very supportive of the things that our government is doing. [interjection] I just heard a comment across the way here about relevance. I think this is very, very relevant in supporting the position and the things that our Minister of Justice is doing within our community.
Now, granted, I think that if you would ask the average Canadian within Canada, within Manitoba, as to what are some of the concerns that are out there, rightfully so, they would say that crime is a big concern. I think that we see this day to day, any time that you will pick up a paper, what are the headlines, and, sad to say, again I have to refer to my area, the incidents of crime, this is crime against people, against property, it appears to us, that is increasing. I think, on the other hand, it is not increasing, but I think that we are certainly more aware as we go on of the things that are taking place out there.
I also do not think that this means that crime is rampant on the streets of Manitoba. There are more people, there are more people out there who are taking things into their own hands and do not feel that they need to respect other people's properties, but they are going ahead and certainly are doing injustices to other people.
While some categories of crime have seen increases in recent years, many categories of crime in many areas of the province are, in fact, in a statistical decline, and this is, in large part, due to the efforts of ordinary Manitobans. Manitobans are not victims in waiting, and I think that our minister has taken steps to strengthen our crime prevention efforts to increase community involvement and find solutions, and we are making progress at many levels.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the most important aspect of this progress is that it is measurable. Statistics Canada reports that break-ins have generally declined across the country since 1991. More specific, with the city of Winnipeg, we have seen a decrease of 26 percent in residential and 27 percent in business break-ins over this time.
Mr. Chairman, while it is important to achieve a reasonable balance between the realities of crime in our communities and our perceptions of these occurrences, the truth is that we must continue to work to reduce all categories of crime. I would also like to note that sentences handed down by judges on more than one occasion recently have provoked considerable public outrage and concern, and that at Manitoba Justice we hear this concern.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, my point of order has to do with relevancy under the Manitoba rules. This motion is about the minister's resignation, and reading a speech into the record about crime really has nothing to do with the motion. I would ask the Chair to call him to order.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, my goodness, as I said right at the very outset, it is my intention here to show the things that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is doing, which are beneficial toward communities. Their resolution is stating that they are saying that he is incompetent, and I am disagreeing with that.
So I believe this is very, very relevant, and the minister, in listening to him previous to this, in fact, was very clearly indicating his position. I think a number of those points are on the record, and I want to add some other points, as members opposite are doing certainly.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I will interrupt here. The honourable member does have a point of order with regard to relevance with regard to the motion that we have before the committee here. I would remind all honourable members that when they are speaking to this--and I know what the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) is referencing is quite in order, but I would caution all members to bear in mind the motion that is before the committee.
If they wish to talk around that and to reference that, the Chair will accept that, but I would ask all honourable members to stay as relevant to the motion that is before us as possible.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Pembina, to continue.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Chairman, and so I will. Speaking specifically to the resolution here again, I just want to indicate that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is concerned about relevancy here, and I would point out, certainly, that the relevancy of it is the efforts that our Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is putting in play within our communities. Because I do not have the ability to know exactly the things that are taking place in the area of Winnipeg, the Burrows area, which the member represents, I believe I must speak specifically of the area that I represent.
The next area that I was going to talk about and reference here was the whole priority of families and how this involves judges, certainly, in the selection of judges, the kinds of people that we put into position. I think it is very important. I would suggest to members opposite that, if they feel that families are not important and the things that are happening out there which are specific to families, certainly they have the opportunity to put that on the record.
Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, as I am speaking here to this resolution and encouraging the members opposite to think twice before they vote on that resolution, certainly our Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has been very consistent with his efforts that he has put forward for the province of Manitoba, for the constituents right across the province, and then specifically the constituents of Pembina.
That is why I come back to what I said originally about the town of Morden and the support that our minister has given us there in supplying the help that we need in helping organize the community in getting community policing in place. Certainly, I believe that this is very important because the more we can control the activities that take place on the streets, the less need we have for judges. Maybe, on the other hand, it would be absolutely fabulous if we did not need any judges at all in this world. My goodness, that would be a perfect world, I realize that, but maybe that is the direction that we need to go. So, Mr. Chairman--[interjection] Well, one of the members here is talking about relevancy. I believe, again, that this is extremely relevant towards the discussion that we are having this afternoon.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have recognized the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), and I am hearing discussion beyond the honourable member for Pembina. If you are going to have any discussion, I would ask that the members do so at the back of the room.
The honourable member for Pembina, please.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Chairman, just, again, further to the discussion on this resolution, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) made a big deal about the whole area of the fact that the minister was concerned, and this was the statement that the member for Crescentwood made, about having a bilingual judge to be appointed.
I think on that that my comment would be that if this had--now I am again quoting from the member for Crescentwood, and he maintains it is an issue, but if it had not been an issue, I would suspect that the members opposite would have pulled this out as being a very, very major issue.
So from what I see from the members opposite is that it does not matter which way or which decisions are made. They appear to be wrong. So then I have to conclude at the end of the day that they are doing this for political reasons, and that is why they are raising these issues, that they can take it back to their communities. Without their own communities having the background as we have, in hearing this day after day within the House, and on our own being able to establish and make up our minds as we hear the debate taking place, we have the opportunity to do that. Certainly we know which is the correct and the right way, but members opposite like to twist it and take it back to their own communities, so I would--[interjection] Well, I hear a comment here about pretzelizing. How true.
* (1650)
So I believe that is another aspect that we need to look at. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), although he was asked to withdraw the term, was talking about people not telling the truth. He used it in different terms. Again, I was rather astounded at the language that was used by that member because certainly I hear him talking against that kind of language on an ongoing basis, and now he himself was using it in this Chamber here and in our discussion to try to defend a position that he was taking. So I found that rather interesting and, I guess, somewhat disappointing that the member would do that.
But just proceeding, the member was also talking about--in fact, he was speculating--he was talking about the fools out there. Well, my goodness, it is unfortunate that he would make those kinds of allegations to people that he is talking about. Certainly, I believe everyone out there has the ability to be able to take both sides of an issue and will be able to, in the final end, make their own decisions. So, again, as was indicated--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I will remind the committee again. I have recognized the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), and this is a very, very serious matter, and I would ask the co-operation of all committee members.
Mr. Dyck: Yes, I want to thank you for the comment that you made about this being a very, very serious matter. Certainly we on this side are taking this matter very seriously because when allegations are put forward in the form of a resolution of this nature, which is demanding the resignation of one of our ministers, that is extremely, extremely important. That is why, in my discussion here, I am showing that our minister certainly does not qualify as one of those people that they are talking about. Right at the outset of my discussion here, I indicated very clearly that I felt that they were talking about someone totally different. This was not someone that I knew or had learned to know within the last few years. So, Mr. Chairman, I just find it astounding that members opposite would come up with a resolution of this nature.
Also, as was indicated before, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) indicated that the minister had not been speaking on the issue. Now, I do not know where the members opposite have been, but as I have been listening to the minister speaking in defence of himself and as rightfully he should, I think he has been very, very pertinent to the discussion. I think that certainly he has given information that would add towards the information that the members opposite are looking for. I find it interesting also that at the end of the day they have not been able to gather the information that they are looking for and, in fact, withdraw their resolution. I would think that ultimately this is what they would be wanting to do, but obviously they want to continue this debate and they are still looking for some more information which they feel is not out there.
But, just in response to this resolution, as I continue to support my colleague, I want to just thank him for the efforts that he has put in towards the community support for our community policing. Again, my constituents come back on an ongoing basis and are supportive of the efforts that our minister, through his department, have put in place for us. So I want to thank him for that, and certainly I believe that there is absolutely no call for this resolution, and possibly at the end of the day, when we are finished debating this issue, the members opposite will, as the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) said, he was using the little phrase of "see the light of day." I think he said the right words. I just do not think he used them in the right context.
I think at the end of the day, the members opposite will possibly see the light of day, and ultimately I would hope that they would change the resolution or at least that they would withdraw it. Maybe in order for them to save face, they could amend the resolution, make it something that would be acceptable, but I think the most appropriate thing for them to do at this point would be to withdraw that resolution and, sure, eat a little bit of crow at this point, but then have life go on.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for this opportunity to put a few comments on the record, and I certainly, certainly, cannot support this resolution that has been put forward by the members opposite. As I indicated before, I certainly trust that at the end of this debate that they will see the light of day and will either withdraw or will change the resolution.
So I was going to conclude, but there are so many more things that I think one could put on the record. Certainly--[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), continue.
Mr. Dyck: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was getting somewhat noisy in here, and I was having a problem just gathering my thoughts here, so I want to thank you for calling the Assembly to order.
I want to also mention some other very successful approaches that have been put in place, and, certainly, I will not have the time to do it, but there are other members who possibly could expand on it. There is the one I really like which I think is something that is appropriate. It is the no need to argue. My goodness, as I go on this afternoon here and I have heard the members opposite, I really feel that they are arguing maybe more so among themselves than with us as to the relevance of the resolution that is out there.
Yet, though, our honourable minister here has been very instrumental in putting this in place, so I believe that is appropriate. How I can tie the next one in, cottage watch, well, maybe I will just leave that one, but I will move on to the campus crime watch. Certainly, Mr. Chairman--
Mr. Martindale: I would like to draw your attention to the rule about relevancy under the Manitoba rules. Last time, I thought you ruled in my favour, but you sort of gave the member some latitude, and he is exploiting that latitude and not being relevant at this point to the motion that is before us.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Burrows does have a point of order, and I believe that under--the honourable member for--on the same point of order? [interjection] On a new point of order.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the dissertation that I am hearing from the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) is very enlightening and, indeed, does reflect why the motion that has been placed on the table is so much out of order and should not even be considered, but because of our parliamentary system we do have to consider things of that nature.
I think we need to also hear from a member who can relate to why the minister has been doing the kind of job that he has in this province and, indeed, is a leader with regard to some of the initiatives that he has undertaken in his department and why this motion that has been put forward is so ill-thought or so out of character.
So I think that I am quite enlightened by the fact that my colleague the member for Pembina has put issues or things on the table which, indeed, lead me to more greatly appreciate the valuable work that is being done by the department and by this minister.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have an additional point of order. I would rule that the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), as I indicated, does have a point of order with regard to relevancy, and I would ask that all members be relevant to the motion that is before the committee.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Pembina, to continue.
Mr. Dyck: I do want to thank you for your ruling. Certainly, every once in a while we do need to be drawn back in focus, and I guess if the members opposite are not that interested in hearing what, in fact, our minister is doing, then certainly one must move on. So I am a little surprised that they do not want to hear all the good things that our minister--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.