MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

 

Justice Minister's Comments

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege and it relates to the comments just made by the minister in this House, comments that indicate very clearly that the minister deliberately misled this House. I am rising at the first opportunity because I wanted to check Hansard. What the minister said in this House on June 15, and I want to point to Hansard, page 2778, in which the minister said: "Well, I know, Madam Speaker, in speaking with the relevant authorities, that his office has called at least eight times, never left a message, never left his name, simply hung up."

 

On Tuesday, it is very clear, from what was stated in this House, that this minister had information in terms of that; not only that, he documented eight times, not seven, not six, not nine, not 10 times. I note that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) never referenced having called eight times, never referenced having not left his name, that the minister knew.

 

Now what is interesting is in Question Period today, rather than answer the questions about the gang line, I want to read into the record why this is such an important issue for us in dealing with this, and I have with me the description of the program which states: Privacy. Your call is confidential. You do not have to give your name. No calls will be traced or displayed.

 

On Tuesday, this minister said that he could trace eight times in which the member for St. Johns had phoned, and yet the document that is handed out to the public, Madam Speaker, says that no tracing will be done. It is obvious that there is not the confidentiality with that gang line, and it is obvious that this minister, who we know has been in difficulty before in this House, if one remembers the selection of judges, the process, in this case, on Tuesday, he said one thing and today he got up and denied it.

 

Let there be no doubt his comments in the House today were a completely different version, not a confusion, Madam Speaker, but it is very clear from his comments that, in fact, this minister was either not telling the truth on Tuesday or not telling the truth today. It was, I believe, of the point which is the essence of privilege. This is contempt of the House, and more importantly, this is contempt for the many people who take the assurances in this program that this is going to be private and confidential. It shows that this minister, for his own political games on Tuesday, was quite willing to violate what has been guaranteed to the people of Manitoba. To try and embarrass the member for St. Johns, that minister may feel it is appropriate to trace calls. The bottom line, this document here guaranteed privacy. This minister has violated that privacy, and today he did not tell the truth when he was confronted with that simple fact.

 

That is why, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that the deliberately misleading statements of the Justice minister be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

 

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I think I need to read into the record the entire conversation. I do not deny that somebody told me that that in fact happened. I stated it in the House that: "in speaking with the relevant authorities, that his office has called at least eight times." There is no question about that. There was no confirmation of that particular point. Indeed, what did the member say in response to my question or in response to my answer? I should say, first of all, I am quoting from 2778:

 

"Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, if he wants a return, all he has to do is leave his name and number.

"Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

 

"Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, with a new question?

 

"Point of Order

 

"Mr. Mackintosh: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure the minister would not want to leave an untruth on the record. He should know full well that the call that was made was by people other than myself, no return phone call."

 

Today in the House, the member said he made the phone calls. So I stood up and said this is the first confirmation that I have had that he made the phone calls.

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): To the matter of privilege. It was two weeks ago on Tuesday when an intern with our caucus called the gang line to find out if in fact there was still anyone that was servicing that line.

 

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

 

Madam Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege is a very important matter, and the members who in turn speak to it are providing advice to the Chair. It is extremely important that I hear the comments that are being made. I would ask for the co-operation of all honourable members.

 

Mr. Mackintosh: As of two weeks following the date that the intern made the call, there had still been no return call to her, which coincides with the experiment or the experience of CBC television which a few weeks earlier had made a call and after two and a half weeks had received no call. I believe they had others make the same kind of call and had no return. So the gang hotline had gone stone cold. And that was, of course, the subject of the questions that were raised in this House on Tuesday.

 

The minister said that I had called at least eight times, which is interesting, Madam Speaker, because even I do not know how many times I have called, and I have calledB

 

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

 

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

 

Mr. Mackintosh: This is a funny issue for the Conservatives, because they find that misleading statements are funny. That is what they derive their strength from. They are prepared to betray Manitobans, to go out with betrayals like this and put misleading comments before Manitoba youth, trying to gain their trust.

 

Calls have been made to the gang line, at first to expose and reveal that this government had on the other end of that phone line not a live body as initially promised but a little answering machine. Calls were then later made to find out if this gang line was even in existence, particularly given the rapid rise of criminal street gangs under the watch of this Premier (Mr. Filmon).

 

How many calls were made I am not sure, but one person does know. This Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) got up in the House on Tuesday and he said that I have called "at least eight times, never left a message, never left his name, simply hung up." There is only one way that this minister could make that comment. There is only one source of that information, and that is call display or a trace, contrary to the assurances of the former Minister of Justice who assured total anonymity to Manitoba youth, who she said had asked for total anonymity, contrary to the releases of this government, of the Filmon government when it announced this gang hotline before the last election and before it went cold after the election, contrary to the wallet-size card that was distributed to Manitoba youth and families.

 

Today he comes in the House, and he said the first time that he knew that I had talked about this was now in the House. Madam Speaker, he said I had called at least eight times. I ask this minister, I ask that he come clean with Manitobans, that he table that information, that he advise where he got this information, why it was that this government has misled Manitoba youth and families in this way. When did he become aware of this information, and what has he done with this?

 

I am more than happy and I am proud that I have been monitoring this line, which has really served as just a token gesture by this government in the face of a very serious challenge to our safety. I am concerned for people who phoned that line. I suspect there are not great numbers, but I think that some people probably called that line, relying on the assurances by this government that this was a confidential line and actually believed it. I guess some people still believe this government when it says no calls will be traced or displayed, no calls traced or displayed. What happened to people informing of gang activity? What happened to people who were calling for help? This was advertised as a help line. What happened to families who were calling in because they wanted to work out their problems and needed assistance on a confidential basis?

 

Who has these names? Because we know that at least one cabinet minister does, and when he got up today, he deliberately misled the House just two days after he told this House that he knew that I had called eight times. Today he said he did not know. That inconsistency cannot be tolerated in this Legislature.

 

* (1410)

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Matters of privilege are always matters of great importance, particularly when they involve the bringing of information to this Assembly.

 

Before I get into the main portion of my remarks, the member for St. Johns says that there is only one way that the Attorney General could have known, but there is a second way, logically there is a second way. Very potentially that someone in their own caucus perhaps has been telling a lot of people as to what in fact the member for St. Johns or others have done. So there is another logical option.

 

Madam Speaker, the point of the matter is there is not only one logical way as the member for St. Johns has alleged. In the exchange of both members who have spoken on this matter, the honourable Attorney General (Mr. Toews) and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), there is a lot of back and forth about information that they have brought to this House. From what I have heard, it is quite likely that the member for St. Johns may have in fact misled this House in information that he has brought. I think it is very important that the record of what was said be properly perused by yourself and by others, and if it should result in a clear indication that the member for St. Johns has in fact not been accurate, in fact misled this House in his comments in the course of questions, this side clearly reserves the right today, and I put it on the record, following your perusal, to move a motion of privilege on this matter censuring the member for St. Johns.

 

In the interim, Madam Speaker, we believe, given the fact that both members involved in this exchange have been quoting the record, in pieces of the record, that it is incumbent upon you as Speaker to peruse, and we would suggest to you that you peruse all of the relevant records and report back to the House. Should it be clear that the member for St. Johns has not accurately provided information to this House, has in fact misled the House in the course of his questions, this side will reserve the right to move a motion of privilege against that member.

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to speak to this matter of privilege, given very much the significance of this matter, and I just want to frame my comments to you by dealing with some of the significance of this.

 

Contrary to some of the comments that I have heard from members opposite, this is an extremely serious issue. For a government to advertise confidentiality of a gang line, given the terrible state of gangs arising in this province under the leadership of the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), given the government has broadcast the confidentiality of a gang line and a promise that no calls would be traced, the comments by the minister on Tuesday past were indeed significant in this Chamber. In fact, the comments of the minister on Tuesday were such that they should be subjected to investigation and review because on Tuesday, when the member for St. Johns asked specific questions about the functioning of the gang line, the minister stood up and stated, and I am quoting, Madam Speaker, from page 2778 of Hansard: "Madam Speaker, in speaking with the relevant authorities, that his office has called at least eight times, never left a message, never left his name, simply hung up. I know that he is checking up on the gang hotline, and that is good to see that the member from the opposition does that."

 

Madam Speaker, you will note from the minister's commentsBand I want to make certain that we isolate the issues. It is very clear from the minister's comments on Tuesday that they are breaching the confidentiality of that line. The minister clearly indicated that he had heard from relevant authorities that an individual or individuals, the member's office, had called the line. This in itself is an affront to members of this Chamber, and it is an affront to all of those citizens who relied on that gang line for confidentiality and nontraceability because that is the point of issue of ethics that has to be dealt with.

 

So it is clear from the minister's statements on Tuesday that that was breached. So that issue itself is so serious as to require us to investigate the function of that line, the effectiveness of that line, and the integrity of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) who will put in place a line advertised, I might add, across the province, thousands and thousands of dollars, about a gang menace, and yet breach the confidentiality, and who knows how many times. We know at least eight times, according to the minister, a breach of confidentiality of that line.

 

So that is the first issue, Madam Speaker, that requires to be clarified. The second and related issue is the minister standing up in the House today and saying that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) had, in fact, phoned the line and confirmed that he phoned the line.

 

Now the minister has attempted to play, as we say, Philadelphia, P-H-I, Philadelphia, and the minister knows what that is, lawyers who play around with words and try to dance around with words and not deal with the issues. The minister attempted to stand up and obfuscate the issue by saying: Well, Madam Speaker, this was the first time that I confirmed that it was the member who called.

Let me read you the minister's statement from Tuesday. His office called at leastBhe never left his name. He never left his name. He did not say: He did not leave the staff's names. He said: He never left his name. So the minister can play words. He can try to play around with those words, but his own words have caught him in his own statement. He did not phone and say: Oh, your office called and someone left a message. He saidBI am quoting from HansardBhis office called and he never left a message, never left his name.

 

So for the minister to stand up today and suggest: Well, this was the first time that I confirmed that he, the member for St. Johns, called is not true. It is not even accurate because the minister saidB[interjection] You know, Madam Speaker, I would not talk, given the record of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), on the issue of ethics and the Monnin inquiry; I would sit silent, if I were the Premier, on this.

 

To continue. So, for the minister to have the gall and the minister to try to attempt to protect his position today by saying: Well, today was the first time that I confirmed a memberBis not only irrelevant to the issue at hand, but it only confirms what the minister had said on Tuesday, which was, and I quote again: His office called. He never left his nameBhis name referring to the member for St. Johns. He was not referring to the Premier (Mr. Filmon); he was not referring to the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou); he was referring to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh).

 

So, Madam Speaker, I suggest that this matter be reviewed, but I have a further suggestion. I think we can at least end the issue of the minister's integrity today by the minister simply standing up, admitting that he made a mistake today, that he misled the House, and that would resolve the issue. Although the larger issue of the government trying to take credit for confidentiality on a gang line, for not tracing calls and for then, in fact, breaching that confidentiality is a larger issue that we in this province and Chamber have to deal with.

 

But I think the proper course of action for the minister to do today would be to apologize for misleading the House today, for suggesting that this was the first time that he confirmed that it was the member, when in fact the minister's own words said otherwise on Tuesday. The minister said otherwise on Tuesday, and no wordsmithing on the part of the minister can change what is written in Hansard and what the minister said today. The minister ought to do the right thing. He ought to apologize today, and then we can get on and deal with the larger issue and the very significant issue of why a government that has recently been won over to gangs and trying to fight gangs would breach the confidentiality of a gang line where they promised anonymity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

 

* (1420)

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, as in the past when we recognize matters of privilege, we acknowledge that they are of a very serious nature. Having said that, I am sure that if we look at the issue that is before us and use a bit of our minds, we could probably come up with something that would justify a matter of privilege. I do not necessarily follow the exact arguments that have been put forward by the official opposition. In terms of a matter of privilege, generally speaking you are talking about how one's right as a member has been infringed upon. I think that if we would have had the focus of that matter of privilege on thatBand I think that there is some meritBif we do some homework, maybe read through Hansard, find out actually what has transpired and so forth, that at some point there could be something that is there. I know myself I would have to give it more thought and have to go through it with more details.

 

Having said that, what has toBand you will listen to the arguments from both sides. There is a concern, a concern, Madam Speaker, that I would suggest to you is being talked about as a dispute over facts, a very interesting concern. It is a question of what it is that has actually taken place, a very serious allegation, an allegation that does need to be answered. If the province indicates that we have a confidential line that no one knows what is happening, that you should feel free to be able to call in to that line, the callers should be able to feel that if they place that call they are not going to be found out, whoever they might be. I think that is a good point. I think that is an excellent point. If in fact that has been violated, I believe, whether it is by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) or individuals from within the department, that that is an issue that is worthy of much debate inside this Chamber. I would argue that it is an issue worthy of many questions during Question Period.

 

At the end of the matter of privilege, I would love to pose that particular question to the government, but that issue in itself is definitely not a matter of privilege in the way in which you have pointed it out. If the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) was meaning to try to say that because of what happened, the member feels threatened in some fashion in which he feels that the government is monitoring his actions, well, then you are getting very close. I would suggest to you that would in fact be a matter of privilege. That is why my advice to the member for St. Johns is to in fact review what has actually taken place and how he feels that this could potentially be a matter of privilege. But definitely with the arguments that have been talked about from all sides of this House, it does not appear to be a matter of privilege.

 

It does raise a valid point, something that is worthwhile in pursuing, in particular getting more information from the Minister of Justice as to the legitimacy of that line. Manitobans expect it to be in confidence, Madam Speaker. Now that is being called into question. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to come clean and clearly indicate and assure Manitobans that if there was a breach, that breach is going to be dealt with immediately; and if there was not a breach, to be able to justify the comments that have been put on the record.

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On June 15, speaking to the point of privilege, the minister said: "Well, I know, Madam Speaker, in speaking with the relevant authorities, that his office has called at least eight times." Today he said in the House, and I quote: "I can advise the member that I know of no names of anyone who called." In fact, the admission by him that he in fact called is the first admission that I had of anyone calling.

Madam Speaker, this minister deliberately misled the House. Last year you wrote a Speaker's Ruling about the minister again having inconsistent statements to this House between his statements on May 11 and May 7 in dealing with the issue of the judge's appointment. There are three issues of this issue of privilege: one is the issue of confidentiality. Ministers of the Crown have resigned in Saskatchewan, in Ontario and other provinces when it has become clear that the ministers have breached confidentiality. There are precedents for that.

 

The second issue is that it is a broken promise. Now I know members opposite do not care about their word anymore, as quoted on page 16, but it is in writing that your name will be held in a confidential way. That is the second issue.

 

The third issue is Rule 262 dealing with contempt of this Legislature and the right of all members to have honest answers to questions put. This is a point of privilege and regrettably the breach of confidentiality, in my view, has been worthy of other ministers with greater honour resigning, the issue of confidentiality for mothers with kids that are worried about gangs is a serious, serious issue on top of the issue of the contempt.

 

Madam Speaker: I thank all honourable member for their advice. I indeed will take the matter of privilege under advisement and bring a ruling back to this House after consulting Hansard and the authorities.

 

We will now continue Question Period.