House Business
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, at 7 p.m., in order to consider the following bills: Bills 5, 6, 7, and 15.
Madam Speaker: To repeat the announcement by the government House leader, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19, to consider Bills 5, 6, 7 and 15.
As previously agreed, the Committee of Supply will resume.
Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The Committee of Supply sitting in Room 254 will resume the Estimates of the Department of Justice. Although we have not officially got into the line-by-line Estimates, the minister was responding to remarks to the motion that is before us. I would ask the honourable minister to continue with his comments.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, I understand, Mr. Chair, that I only have a few minutes left available to me and so, rather than at this time go through any further detail of the judges' salary case, I would conclude my comments and leave the floor open to others who may want to debate this issue.
* (1440)
Mr. Chairperson: Before we do hear from any other, when we were sitting earlier this morning, there was a point of order from members concerning the point of order raised by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). The usual practice during debate on a motion in the Committee of Supply is to alternate between government and opposition members. We have not got into the line-by-line Estimates at this point. Accordingly, the rotation for the debate on the motion before the committee will alternate between government and opposition members. If a member is not available to speak during his or her party's rotation, I will recognize the first member who seeks the attention of the Chair.
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I would remind, to make this ruling, since I have to make a ruling on the point of order, I am ruling that the honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order.
Before I recognize the honourable member for Thompson on this particular issue, if debate is going to continue--which I presume that it is--I do have a list of members who had raised their hands and asked that the Chair recognize them. I do have a list, and on that list I have taken them in order as the Chair recognized them. I recognized the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). That is the way the list stands now.
The honourable member for Thompson, on a matter of clarification.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, just a matter of clarification, whether you use it as a point of order or not, you are saying that there will be an alternation in debate, which is basically what our point was.
Mr. Chairperson: That is correct.
Mr. Ashton: I think that is a very good ruling.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I guess what I have seen happen in the past if there is a bit of a questioning of the motion--because I was not necessarily here prior to the motion being presented. I did not hear any of the details as to why the motion, in fact, should be supported. I understand the motion is actually going to be provided for me, and I appreciate that.
Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, this is indeed a very serious issue. In fact, yesterday I stood inside the Chamber, and as each MLA is given an opportunity to grieve once in any given session, I had taken yesterday as my opportunity to express some concerns that I had with respect to what was happening. Nothing really has changed from my point of view with respect to that. What I try to do is to bring things down to as simple of a level as possible in order to make what I believe is a relatively good, soundly based decision.
I am not clear. Prior to the Chief Justice not making any form of a statement, whether it was direct or indirect through a statement inside the Chamber, it would have been a little bit more difficult to have come down on this particular issue.
But, given the statement that was made yesterday inside the Chamber, I think, at least from my point of view, it somewhat puts the issue to rest until we can find, as an opposition, or until the Chief Justice attempts to address the public as a whole. Only she knows whether or not she will do that, because in essence we have to look at what actually took place. The reality of the situation was that you had the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and the Chief Justice having some discussions about the need for bilingual judges, from what I understand, or bilingual candidates. That had taken place quite a while back. Then there was the time when the Chief Justice went to the Minister of Justice, and a list was provided with seven candidates. I understand that the Minister of Justice was wanting to see a bilingual name on that particular list.
I guess I can be somewhat sympathetic to that particular need in the sense that I think at times there is a need, whether maybe it is bilingual, maybe it is aboriginal, maybe it is another form of minority group, where government would like to see included on the list. What we have to do is we have to compare it to what was happening prior to the legislation. Prior to the legislation it was in essence the cabinet that selected whomever they wanted to become the judge. Well, legislation then was brought forward to change that system.
I think one of the things that was not taken into consideration in bringing forward that legislation was what about the public, the perceived public need. In this case, it was for a bilingual judge. Well, that, in all likelihood--and I have not read every paragraph of the act--was not taken into consideration. There was a discussion that took place, and I think that that would be a responsible thing to do: to have some sort of a discussion airing the concerns of, well, here we are hopeful or we would like to see at least some candidates, that there is a need for a bilingual judge. I think that there is some merit for that sort of a discussion.
When the Chief Justice just came back with just the seven on the list, I would have been very disappointed in the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) if he said: I will not accept this list unless there is a bilingual candidate. But, from what I understand, both from the Minister of Justice--and there is no denial of that from the Chief Justice.
Those were the only two involved in that particular meeting, that that never took place, that that ultimatum was not there. So, if that ultimatum was not there, that means the list as being proposed by the selection committee was, in fact, going to be respected.
Now, there was discussion about that bilingual candidate. If the Minister of Justice would have said, for example, Mr. Chairperson, knowing full well that the only bilingual individual was, in fact, a Tory candidate that ran back in, I think, 1988, and he knew that to be fact and suggested to the judge that I want to see a bilingual candidate on there, well, I would have a very serious problem with that.
That is the reason why I ask the question directly to the minister: was he aware of the fact that he was the only bilingual candidate? The minister, I believe, said something to the effect that he had no idea if there were other bilingual candidates. Now I understand, in fact, since I asked that particular question, that there were other bilingual candidates. Nothing prevents the committee, if you like, from reopening or asking for additional bilingual candidates.
If it could be demonstrated from the official opposition that the minister tried to get a particular individual into the courts, I think, then, there would be a valid argument. I have not heard anything that has actually demonstrated that. I believe that the only way it would appear, at least at this point in time, to be able to demonstrate that is that we would need to have something come from the Chief Justice.
That is the reason why I spoke yesterday on my grievance making reference specifically to what the Chief Justice has said in essence through that ministerial statement. I also indicated in the grievance that in fact once I receive it from Hansard, I would be faxing it over to the Chief Justice's office. Well, Mr. Chairperson, prior to coming up to the committee room, I handed my assistant a copy of the Hansard, a copy of the grievance, and asked that it be sent to the Chief Justice's office. The reason why is because that is the only way in which I have as a legislator the ability to confirm whether or not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has accurately portrayed what took place in that ministerial statement. If I hear absolutely nothing from the Chief Justice, then I can only assume that the ministerial statement is, in fact, accurate.
* (1450)
Mr. Chairperson, what makes it very difficult--and the Minister of Justice made reference to it, in part, in his dialogue. He talked about the importance of judicial independence. I recognize the importance of judicial independence, but in recognizing that judicial independence, I also recognize there is a need for public accountability, and I think that that is, at least in part, being lost, I would argue, in this whole process.
That is the reason why I felt that it was indeed appropriate for me, given these circumstances, to express in the best way I could--and it might not be the best way, but in the best way that I could think of to convey a message in hopes that the Chief Justice will, in fact, look at the seriousness of the issue that is before this Legislature and do what she feels appropriate.
In Question Period today, when the minister was asked the specific question, is he saying--or the whole issue of the gag order, and I think that is important. It is important for a couple of points. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has indicated directly, in any fashion at all, that the Chief Justice cannot speak on this issue, I think he would be doing a disservice and there would be a valid argument for the Minister of Justice to resign.
I understand that that has not, in fact, occurred, and, again, Mr. Chairperson, the only person who can actually respond to that is the Chief Justice, so it is a question of do we believe that the Chief Justice has been manipulated. Well, I would be disappointed in the Chief Justice of the province if she allowed herself to be manipulated, and she has a responsibility, not to this Legislature but to the public of the province of Manitoba, to indicate on the record what, in fact, has transpired.
Well, short of that occurring, we have a statement that is very clear that has been made, and one has to accept that the Chief Justice has not been manipulated because if the Chief Justice has been manipulated, then she has allowed herself to be manipulated. If that is the case, the Chief Justice, in keeping with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), should both step aside. She should not be the Chief Justice of the province if she has allowed herself to be compromised in that situation, but, Mr. Chairperson, much like I am prepared to give the Minister of Justice the benefit of the doubt, I am also prepared to give the Chief Justice the benefit of the doubt.
What actually has transpired, Mr. Chairperson, I believe only two people know, the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice, and there is only one individual who, in any public way, directly has commented on this particular issue. The Chief Justice has not for whatever reason, and I am not in a position in which I can force, nor am I going to continue to push to force for the Chief Justice. I would have thought that it would have been appropriate to make some sort of a statement, but that is up to the Chief Justice. I am satisfied that there was something that was put on the record yesterday, and because of that, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt not only to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) but also to the Chief Justice.
Mr. Chairperson, I would conclude by saying that I have, as a legislator, done whatever I can in the sense of faxing my grievance to the Chief Justice, and I would look to those two individuals until there is some sort of contradiction, something that clearly demonstrates because of the seriousness of this, something that is tangible that comes out that shows that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) has not been accurate in what he has said in his statement yesterday, or the Chief Justice addresses it directly and it contradicts what the Minister of Justice has, in fact, put on the record. Then, in fact, I would suggest to you--
Mr. Toews: Just on a point of order, I note that the member refers to the judge as a Chief Justice. In fact, it is the Chief Judge. There is a distinction. So, just for the purpose of the record, it is the Chief Judge that the member is referring to.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster, to finish your response.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate that because there is a significant difference, obviously, for that. So I do appreciate that.
To conclude, Mr. Chairperson, unless there is something else that is brought to the table that clearly identifies a contradiction between the Chief Judge and the Minister of Justice, I, and I believe I should say, and my colleagues, I do not believe are in a position to support this particular motion.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. I would move to now put the question.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, that motion has to be a motion that is in writing.
We have a motion that was presented to the Chair moving the question be put. The motion is in order. Is it the will of the member to--it is a nondebatable motion.
Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Chairperson, I would request a counted vote, a formal vote.
Mr. Chairperson: Just for the point of clarification, for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I am informed that we need another member to move that.
Mr. Ashton: I was speaking for our entire 23-person caucus. [interjection] There are four of us here.
Mr. Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested by two members. This section of the committee will now proceed to the Chamber for a formal vote.
The committee recessed at 2:59 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:05 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. According to the rotation, the honourable member for Thompson has been asked to speak.
Mr. Ashton: I have given many speeches in this Legislature, but very few under this kind of circumstance. I must admit that only about 10 minutes ago I was not expecting to have any opportunity to speak on this motion. I would note for the record that--
An Honourable Member: Unlimited time.
Mr. Ashton: Well, I would love to have that. There is something about this room that brings back memories, but I would note for the record that our Justice critic moved the motion, and I am the first New Democratic to be able to speak on this. If the motion put forward by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) had been passed, then obviously I would have not been able to do that. That is the process in committee.
I say to the members opposite, I know it is the final episode of Seinfeld tonight, but we did not have to turn the Legislature into two hours of comic proportions either. I will not suggest who in this Legislature might be appropriate for which character. I think some of us could come up with our own suggestions on that. But, anyway, I must admit earlier that when we were discussing what was going to happen in this session, I was thinking of another rather brilliant comedy show from a few years ago, Monty Python, because it certainly had parallels today as well.
But the fact is the government did back down, did allow us to speak on this, did not muzzle us, did not stop us from speaking out. I am glad the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) has come along some way because I want to suggest that that is exactly one of the reasons we started this debate because we want the government to go further. We want the government not to be speaking for the Chief Judge of this province; we want the government to stop what we have seen put in place which is a gag agreement involving the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and the Chief Judge and allow the facts to be put on the record.
* (1610)
I want to give some very good reasons why we moved this motion, Mr. Chairperson. I do not want to start with the statement--I could start chronologically, and I will deal with that in a few moments--but the statement that was introduced yesterday in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), and if there is any doubt about why this Minister of Justice should resign, it was this statement, a ministerial statement regarding the judicial appointment process. I was stunned when I heard the expression here, and I just want to read it into the record.
I am quoting the minister: "I have the utmost respect for the Chief Judge, and accordingly I have been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge on the events of the last several weeks relating to the judicial appointment process." Mr. Chairperson, "I have been made aware."
Well, some of us when we heard that phrase thought: what happened here? Did the Chief Judge phone up the minister? That would be one possible way. Did the Chief Judge write to the minister? Did the minister phone the Chief Judge or write to the Chief Judge? Was there a brown envelope that was put under the door? It took us 40 minutes, but by the end of Question Period yesterday we had the minister confirming on the record--I have the Hansard here, and I find it absolutely amazing that what the minister did was, finally, after close to 40 minutes, confirm that what he did was that he contacted a lawyer. We still do not know how the lawyer was selected by the Chief Judge, but we know that this was the process that took place.
Now think about this for a moment. I am trying to think of how this process would start, because we still do not have answers on this. What did the minister do? Did the minister phone up the lawyer and say--and I quote the minister: "The person who I had acting as an intermediary on my behalf was Mr. Bill Olson of Thompson Dorfman." What happened? Did the minister get on the phone to Bill Olson and say: I have a job for you.
In fact, did he even contract with this lawyer? We do not know if there was a fee paid, whether it is paid by the minister's department, paid by the minister directly, or if this was just a favour. Some old boys' connection is the word that is used, but if we want to use other terms--old persons--I think we know that this is a term that is used very much by the feminist movement to reference the fact in many cases, certainly until recently, and in most cases that is the situation.
But what did the minister do? Did the minister phone up and say that I got a problem here? What kind of direction did the minister give to Mr. Olson, what kind of direction? Well, we do not know. What we do know is--and this is from the minister's own words again both in the statement and today--that we essentially had what would be equivalent--I realize the minister is a lawyer, and I think he would accept this analogy as well. They treated it as if this was some kind of a plea bargain or some kind of an out-of-court settlement on a civil suit.
One of the common elements in that kind of agreement is, indeed, that people who are party to that agreement cannot speak out any further on that, certainly the case in many civil settlements. So what you have is the situation whereby the minister, who was getting increasingly caught in a web of his own creation, of inconsistencies, of complete inconsistencies, tried to get these two lawyers to work out an agreement that included supposedly this statement. We know this. Apparently, we have to take the minister's word--represents not only his word but the Chief Judge, but also we heard today that this is going to be it, no more statements. Aha! And I mention, you know, when you are in an out-of-court settlement situation, that is one of the things that are agreed to. Now we do not know if there was a written memorandum of understanding--that would be normal process. We do not know if there is an exchange of letters. All we know is we have to take the minister's word. They know he not only speaks for himself, but the Chief Judge.
Now, people may say: How important is that to this particular issue? Well, let us deal with that. How much can we rely on the word of the minister on this particular matter? May 7, 1998, the first time this issue came up, the minister talked about the issue of judges. I just want to paint the picture here again, because it is interesting that people are confusing this, and I think it is important to put on the record what happened. If you look at the concern here, it is about direct interference in the selection of judges. Under the act that is not a role for the minister to play.
The real concern in this particular case was whether the minister tried to rig the process by specifically raising the issue of bilingual judges, knowing that one of those who was interviewed, not applied--and I say this to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because I know he asked this question--one of those who was interviewed just happened to fit that criterion. There have been suggestions that there is more than one criterion involved; there are also some political, personal connections involved. I want that to be clear, because the minister does not have the ability to send this back and say: I am going to reject this list. It is a one-way street. The committee recommends to the minister.
Now, what was the opinion of the representatives from the Law Society and the Bar Association? They were at their part of the selection committee. They received the report from the Chief Judge that basically, unless the list was added to, the list could very well be rejected. Talk about the two-way street. What is interesting, by the way, is that in the minister's first statement he said he did not even raise it. If you were to believe that, you might say: well, what happened here? That was on May 7. Well, what happened on May 11, because if you look at what happened on May 11, the minister at that particular time said: well, you know, maybe I did raise it. On May 11, the tune changed.
I have the reference in Hansard. I would invite people to reference it. "On that particular issue I can indicate that I had raised the issue of bilingual capacity, French-speaking capacity on our courts." Version No. 1: the suggestion that it be raised was not a suggestion made by me. But now that the minister on May 11, only when confronted by the conflicting stories here of the two individuals who sat on the committee, who received that report back, did he change his story and say: well, maybe I did raise it.
Well, let us deal with what this supposed correction, this ministerial statement, says. Now, I think one of the most operative words in here or the phrases outside of, I had been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge, is the fact that he said: "I am advised that the Chief Judge has reviewed the transcript of Question Period on May 11, 1998."
Well, we now know why. Because this minister is the one who initiated this process. Now, was this part of the direction to his lawyer, Mr. Olson? Mr. Olson, I want you to phone the Chief Judge--we do not know if that was the direction--or somebody that presumably could act on behalf of the Chief Judge, and I want you to raise the issue of May 11, and they are now saying that, you know, I interfered in the process and I am going to be in serious difficulty; my credibility as Minister of Justice is going to be zero if that issue continues.
* (1620)
Well, what is interesting is because the statement--what do we have back from it? Well, it is referenced to May 11, 1998, and all the statement says is: "I am advised that the Chief Judge has reviewed the transcript of Question Period . . ."--once again, we have to take the minister's word for this; we do not know what the Chief Judge has said; we do not know what the written agreement is--"and shares my recollection of the substance of the matters discussed between us on May 4."
Now, by the way, May 11, not May 7. You note that; very clever on the minister's part. May 7 was conveniently left out. I could deal with that because I think, in essence, that proves exactly what we said all the way along, that even when he went via this channel to the Chief Judge, he did not want to know about May 7. He wanted to know about May 11, but he continued to say: "However, for her part, I am advised my comments left her uncertain upon leaving our meeting as to my intention to proceed with the process of appointing two Provincial Court judges from the list of seven names that had been left with me at the end of the meeting."
So what he is admitting in this particular statement is that indeed there was on the part of the Chief Judge, very clearly she went back of the opinion to the--you remember how the Premier (Mr. Filmon) sometimes throws back and says the other individuals in the selection process were not part of this.
But, you know, the Chief Judge went back obviously, immediately, and said to that committee exactly what those committee members have put on the public record.
Now, what is interesting is talk about hanging by a thread here, because the minister, first of all, will not deal with May 7, he deals with May 11, and in his own statement, this supposed joint statement here, we have clearly on the record clear evidence that the Chief Judge then went to the selection committee and said to the selection committee that the bilingual position has to be added after the fact, something you cannot do under the act.
Now, what did the minister do? Did he apologize? Did he say I should not have said that? I want to read the operative word again, because all he said was I regret any misunderstanding that might have been generated by my lack of clarity.
He regrets any misunderstanding. Mr. Chairperson, this was not a simple case of a few misspoken words, and I suggest to the minister, he is a lawyer, he has operated in a courtroom. Not being of the legal profession myself, I would suggest he might wish to look at one of the issues when you are dealing in a court case, credibility of witnesses. Why should we believe the minister? Why should we believe the minister who said one thing on May 7, said one thing on May 11, and in this case, why should we believe that there was any real misunderstanding?
You know, Mr. Chairperson, I do not think there was any misunderstanding. I think the minister knew exactly what he was doing. The minister was trying to get one particular candidate added, and it is very easy to do, because all you had to do was say let us add in the requirement, after the fact, of being bilingual. Guess what, only one of the interviewees was bilingual.
I mentioned this in the House. I mean, there is not a job application out there that cannot be rigged. If you happen to know the exact qualifications of the person you want, all you have to do is ask for it. If you want to fill a job and you know there is somebody out there with a Ph.D. in classical Arabic studies and you put that in and there is only one person with that qualification, surprise, surprise, you get that. I mean, that happens all the time. We all know that; we see it. You do not have to be--anybody else, anybody who has any experience with the employment process, that is what the minister did in this particular case.
What misunderstanding? The minister knew exactly what he was doing. What we really have here is that the only regret the minister has is he got caught. He got caught. Not only did he get caught dealing with a situation where he had the Law Society representative and the Bar Association representative, and there are other representatives on that board, as well, on the selection process, but you have the Chief Judge who goes out of this meeting, goes into this committee and says this is what the Minister of Justice said.
Now, what are we supposed to do following this process now? Are we supposed to believe the minister when he clearly has stated various things on the record that are not accurate? Are we supposed to believe that the minister somehow could be objective in this case and speak for him and the Chief Judge? I think not.
But I want to go one step further, because I think what the minister has done on this particular matter is I think he has compounded this beyond its original complexity. I mean, it was bad enough to begin with. Here you had key people, the Law Society, the Bar Association, questioning the political interference of the minister in the selection, the judicial process.
That was based, by the way, not on anything that was second and third-hand. This is based on the direct comments of the Chief Judge who met with the minister and reported that meeting back to the various people who are part of that selection process.
So the minister, I say--and I will put this on the record because I think this is common knowledge--the concern was that the Chief Judge was going to come out and make a public statement on this. And what would the Chief Judge have said? Well, you could even read it in the words of the minister. The Chief Judge believed, following their meeting on May 4, that this was the intent of the minister to send the list back to add the bilingual requirement. That is what the Chief Judge believed.
The minister was concerned that, if this came out, all of a sudden he would not only have the Law Society, the Bar Association representatives, but the Chief Judge who was at the meeting with him, clearly indicating what had happened, and that he was interfering in the process. So what he did was he started this circuitous process that I talked about. I want to suggest that that has made this worse for this minister. It was bad enough, I think, when you have a Minister of Justice that clearly does not have the confidence of the head of the Bar Association and that of the Law Society, two key players in the judicial system, but here you had the Chief Judge--but this minister was so desperate to save his political hide that he brought in Mr. Olson and he brought in--we do not know if he brought in--I still do not understand how this contact can go, by the way, the Chief Judge's lawyer, because at some point in time someone has to contact the Chief Judge, either directly or indirectly.
Now, the minister said, well, I did not do it directly. You know, when I hear a lawyer, that lawyer is acting on my behalf and you cannot hide behind him and say: well, I did not phone the Chief Judge; I just hired a lawyer. I mean, you get in the next question: What were the instructions to the lawyer? How did the discussion go? Hi, Mr. Olson--Bill, right, Bill Olson--how's it going, right? And he asks back how's it going? Oh, I'm having a tough week. Oh, yeah, I heard about this Chief Judge situation. I'll fix it for you, don't worry. I'll phone a friend of mine who's a friend of the Chief Judge and we will get this straightened out. Version No. 1, right? Just all between friends here.
What is version No. 2? He phones up the lawyer and says, what? What are the instructions to the lawyer? Fix it. Now, even lawyers, and there are good lawyers out there and I think Mr. Olson is well respected in the legal profession, but even Mr. Olson, based on the expressed instructions to fix it, I think, would have some difficulty with that sort of mandate. So what I suspect what happened here is the minister phoned up Bill Olson and said: I have a problem. Unless I get a statement from the Chief Judge, unless I can say the Chief Judge agrees with me, I am in serious political trouble. I would suggest he maybe even said confidentially to the lawyer that his political career was on the line. I think that was legitimate, probably an accurate assessment. Was that how the discussion went, Mr. Chairperson?
Does the minister not understand how that in and of itself, I think, compounds it? It was bad enough before: you had the minister on one side; you had the Chief Judge and the presidents of the Bar Association and the Law Society on the other side. Now, we have a situation where the minister initiated. I have the Hansard from yesterday if anybody wishes to read through it. The minister initiated this; we know that now. I compare that, by the way, to his ministerial statement where I reference again, and I cannot say this often enough on the record: "I have been made aware of the recollections of the Chief Judge." The Chief Judge did not phone the minister to make him aware. The Chief Judge did not talk to the minister. The Chief Judge apparently either talked to his lawyer or to this other lawyer that was involved. I suppose he acted on behalf of the Chief Judge, and then we end up with this brokered, back-room attempt to provide the minister with a--I was going to say a shield, but I would say it is more like a fig leaf here, Mr. Chairperson, to cover him from the fact that his political credibility, I believe, was seriously questioned by many people.
* (1630)
Does the minister not understand how much he has now tied in the Chief Judge? You know, we now have a situation where we do not know what the Chief Judge would have said, and we will now never know on this because, according to the minister today, there was an agreement. That is it. The minister spoke for himself and spoke for the Chief Judge. I say there are issues on which the Chief Judge should be able to speak. There is precedent for that. By involving the Chief Judge in this way, I believe the minister certainly is compromising the independence of the judiciary. I think, by the way, that it is totally inappropriate to have a statement read quoting the Chief Judge on debate and Question Period in the House. You know, if the Chief Judge wishes to make a statement, she can do it in a written statement. She can do it in whatever form she wants, but talks about May 11, 1998, the transcript for Question Period.
What part of it? Which questions? The questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)? By the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh)? I believe on that day as well the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asked questions. I believe other members of our caucus have asked questions. Now what he has done, he has dragged the Chief Judge in to start commenting on Question Period, but conveniently only one day in Question Period.
You know, all we have in here--I mean, talk about weasel words. This is why I think the minister does a major disservice to the Chief Judge, talks about the recollections of the Chief Judge, and talk about statements that are weasel words here, and "shares my recollection of the substance of the matters discussed between us on May 4," even though he admits that she went out of that meeting and basically told the committee what we have been saying on the record now to be the case, which they denied initially, even after it came out publicly. When they attacked the credibility of the presidents of the Law Society and the Bar Association, what he did on May 11 was turn around and say that this is basically what happened. We know the Chief Judge went back and said that to the selection committee, but "shares my recollection"? Which recollection? Which statements? Which questions?
I mean, is this going to be the next step now in government, that we are going to have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) phone up a lawyer who will then go and talk to whomever, judges, whichever judge? Are we going to now have those kinds of statements read into the record by that minister?
You know, the minister, I think, should resign for a number of reasons. First of all, he has not been telling the people of Manitoba through the Legislature the complete truth. I say that, Mr. Chairperson, because we have different versions of the same incidents. We have the minister changing his story. That is clear. That, in and of itself, I think, is reason for this minister to submit his resignation, but he has gone further.
The second step was essentially I believe he lost credibility within the legal profession with his actions vis-a-vis the Law Society and the Bar Association, and, by the way, I include the Premier (Mr. Filmon) because the Premier has compounded this. The Premier has, I think, shown how basically with this government their standard of ethics is so low that it is virtually impossible for any minister to be kicked out of cabinet. We have seen that. You know, it is sort of like limbo dancing. If you put the bar about three inches from the bottom of the floor, you can say, well, we do have a standard here; it is three inches high but no one can get under it. That is what has happened.
But let us add to that not being up front with the people of Manitoba on the record, much about the Law Society and the Bar Association, but by his most recent actions what he has done, he has dragged the Chief Judge into this, to commenting on Question Period indirectly, has dragged the Chief Judge into an unseemly illegitimate process. I do not think the Chief Judge, by the way, and I say this on the record, should have been involved in any back-room discussions with anybody through a representative and with a representative of the minister. So he has now dragged the Chief Judge in.
I know he is hanging by a thread, but how many more components of the judicial system is that minister going to drag down with him? Well, Mr. Chairperson, we have suggested there is a better way. First, the minister should resign, and the minister liked to play games with that. You know, we said in the House, well, then you call for an independent investigation. We said the minister should resign; call an independent investigation.
Now, there has been clear precedent for that. We have had a situation in Manitoba. Wilson Parasiuk who was exonerated, no misconduct, but accusations made in the newspaper. He was exonerated. The attorney general, one Mr. Runciman, I believe, in Ontario, was in a position of being accused of revealing the name of a young offender indirectly by recognizing the mother of the young offender, thereby indirectly indicating who the young offender was. This was in the throne speech. It was not even his comments, but, obviously, it had to come from his office. Some suggested the Premier was equally responsible, Mike Harris, in Ontario. But you know what that Attorney General did, Mr. Chairperson, that Attorney General immediately tendered his resignation and has submitted the matter to an independent inquiry. You know, in Ontario, there have been numerous examples with the previous NDP government and the current Conservative government where that process has been followed.
I wonder is the Premier (Mr. Filmon) so desperate to say, well, nobody ever had to leave my cabinet; no one ever had to quit. Well, you know, if you set the ethical standards so low that no one ever, ever, ever goes below that standard, then, indeed, no one is going to resign. But I say to the minister, if it is good enough for the attorney general of Ontario, why is it not a good enough standard here? I want to throw this into the mix, too, because I would say, given these circumstances, any minister should have resigned to at least clear the air, to at least re-establish confidence amongst key components of the justice system.
I say to the minister: Does he not understand that the Attorney General's office, to my mind, in particular, should be above and beyond this kind of political circumstance? The Attorney General is not just a minister of the Crown. That brings with it responsibilities as a member of the Legislature but also the additional responsibilities of being a minister of the Crown, but he is fundamentally responsible for preserving the integrity of the justice system.
I say to the minister: How can he go on and have any credibility in this matter? I mean, what credibility is he going to have with the legal profession, with judges, when he has now had to drag the Chief Judge into this desperate attempt to limit the political damage? I say to the minister: What credibility does he have? This is the same minister--who can forget the minister about electing judges, electing judges? I mean, this same minister at the same time in the same breath was out there trying to rig the selection process to appoint this particular judge. What credibility is he going to have? I can just see it in a debate in the election. He is going to get up and say we should elect judges; we have to make judges more accountable.
Mr. Chairperson, he is going to have zero credibility on that because they are all going to say: yes, you are the one who tried to rig the existing selection process. I say to the minister that his credibility has been seriously weakened by this. I think it has been fatally weakened. I say the longer he hangs in there, what he is going to do is he is going to continue, I would say, an increasing level of a lack of confidence in the judicial system and of the public of Manitoba in his ability as Minister of Justice.
I say to the minister: Do the right thing; do not play these political games. You should not have dragged the Chief Judge in. You should not have had this ongoing dispute with the Law Society and the Bar Association. You should not have said what you did at that meeting. You are in violation of the process for appointing judges.
I say to the minister that, if ever I have seen in this Legislature reasons why a minister should resign and step aside and put in place an independent inquiry, this is it. I appeal to the minister, and I appeal to members opposite. You may think that you are saving the minister's political skin, but in the process, you are hurting our legal system, and, I say, in the long run, you are hurting this minister as well. Please, Mr. Minister, you should resign.
* (1640)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The list that I have before me that I recorded, the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) was to speak. Mr. Penner does not appear to be going to speak. The next member on the list is the honourable member for Broadway.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Chairperson, there are twin lights in our governmental system; there are two basic principles: that we have a government of law and not of men; and second, equally important, that within that system we maintain the independence of the judiciary. We say that we are a government of law because the law has to prevail. Once it is written in the statute book, it is for a judge to interpret the law. It is for political people like us, legislative assemblies, us representative of the people themselves who have the authority and mandate to write the law, but the judiciary should be let alone to interpret the law.
When the composition of the judicial branch, the people who occupy judicial positions, is determined without any shadow of interference from the political sphere of government, then the citizens will have their full faith and confidence in the judiciary. But the moment we tamper with the processes in this autonomous and independent branch of government, we also shake the confidence of the citizens who rely on the independence of the judiciary and the judges.
We should remember that the judiciary are institutional agencies of government, and they have the power and right to take away not only the lives and freedom of citizens, but also to take away property rights and other rights of citizens. That is why we adhere to that doctrine in our system that they should be left alone to administer justice. We saw that in the icon of a blind lady with a sword so that we cannot see all the biases of litigants. It is also a rule that, when you are interested in the outcome of a case, you are a party to any issue or any thing to be settled, you should not in any way be allowed to influence the one who is to make the decision, namely the judge.
Now what we have seen in this case is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), who occupies the highest position in the land in terms of being the chief enforcer of the law and the chief upholder of that tradition of independence of the judiciary, has been allegedly accused of not only interfering in the judicial selection of who are going to be judges, but also had himself take a direct hand in muzzling a member of the judiciary, the Chief Judge, from clarifying the facts and removing all shadows of doubt as to what had actually happened. The honourable minister had done this by means of a statement purporting to be the mind and the expression of the mind of the Chief Judge.
I do not know if human being can ever, ever be in a position to know the mind of another human being. All I know is that one has to be of some kind of a divine person, a divine being before he can enter into the mind of his fellow human being, and for any mortal person like the honourable Minister of Justice to say that he can speak the mind of the Chief Judge is to me an expression of arrogance, which is not at all believable psychologically or factually. I cannot even know the mind of my closest. Even twins who are born closest in genes and genetic characteristics, they cannot know or foretell the mental processes of the other twin. How can another human being say that this is what another human being is going to say? That is presumptuous, unbelievable, arrogant.
Purportedly, he wants to put an end to this issue that befuddled him in his position. This is like the doctrine of res judicata. There should be an end to all controversy, but the end to all controversies can only happen when the facts are in, and the facts can only be in where there is an independent inquiry, a judge or a retired judge from another jurisdiction, who is not in anyway involved in the environment, in the controversy, to hold a hearing and get all the information that he can get, but that will not happen as long as one of the principal parties to the controversy is not willing to step down as Attorney General and Minister of Justice.
It is a prerequisite to an independent inquiry about a position and the performance of a position that the occupant of the position step down. That is the only honourable thing to do. Refusing to do so will cast even more doubts, even more suspicion about what has actually happened, especially so when the honourable minister has made a series of statements which are not consistent with all the other statements he has made before and after.
I do not know which one is better, to be consistently inconsistent or to be inconsistently consistent, but in any event, we are caught by our own words. It is written in the books, by thy words, thou shalt be justified, and by thy words, thou shalt be condemned. Therefore, unless you have something to say, you hardly should speak, and when you speak you should make sure that what you speak is the truth, because it is only the truth that can make us free. The truth can make men free.
The honourable minister can be free from all these allegations of scandal, allegations of interference, allegations of musseling down, if the truth be allowed to surface, and that will happen when he steps down from the position as the chief enforcer of the law in this province, allow an independent inquiry by another third person who is not at all involved in this controversy and come up with all the factual information needed to clear the air. Only then can honour prevail. Only then can the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary be preserved.
Indeed, there might be controversies as to what the facts are. Two persons looking at the same phenomena may not have the same impression of what actually happened. Facts are quite distinguishable from our own individual perception of the facts. That is the reason why some philosophers said that all life around us is just an illusion. It is what you see, and what you see may not coincide with what is actually there. [interjection] She said Plato and she is right.
Indeed, we are surrounded with so many artificialities in our social structure. We have to say that every member of the Legislative Assembly is an honourable person. That is only an assumption, but if you prove it otherwise, then you destroy the assumption.
* (1650)
As I said, one's perception may depend upon the position one is occupying. If you happen to be the opposition, you perceive the same phenomenon a different way. If you happen to be the government, you perceive the facts in a different way. But then you need a third party, a third person who is not at all involved in this controversy in order to lay down what actually happened, and then we can agree that those are the facts. [interjection]
Oh, she said those are the Liberals, but the Liberals are sometimes sitting right in the middle of the fence. You do not know if they are for it or against it. I do not want to speak against any political party, but that is my observation. On the other hand, since there is no clear perception of what is factual, you cannot blame them either.
But what grieves me in all this setting is the secrecy that surrounds the official transaction of public business. I know that there is a basic axiom in the parliamentary system that certain information has to be confidential, and it is justified by certain highest value in the land, like the security of the country, for instance. In that case, then it should be confidential, but when every official business has to be confidential, even interacting and clarifying what the mind of another person is, then it is really an excessive application of the doctrine.
I do not think anything that involves the public business, the affairs of the people, the affairs of the citizen, should be secret at all. In every decision that a government in power makes, if they only express the facts available to them at the time they make the decision and they also express the value premises that they are relying on when they make the decisional choice, then I suppose that would be a rational kind of decision making in our system of government. The citizen will know, and the decision maker will hesitate to make decisions if there is any unfairness, if there is any injustice, if there is any kind of oppression that may result as an outcome flowing from that decision.
Therefore, it is essential that as much as possible, we should be open in terms of the factual basis of our choices. If it is a fact that the honourable minister did not intend to reject the list that was sent to him, then it should come out in an open inquiry. There is nothing for him to hesitate about, if that is the fact. Anyone on the side of the truth is not afraid of anything that could be dug up. What can you dig up if it is the truth that you are on? But, if you are hiding some skeleton in your closet, then you will not want the closet to be open because they may see the skeleton.
The mere fact that you refuse in opening the closet is already a condemnation of your behaviour that you are really hiding something, even if in fact you are not. So I think it is essential that we open all these processes, these kinds of series of events as they happen, as they unfold and let the world see who is telling the truth, who is not telling the truth; who is hiding something, who is not hiding something. Then there will be more confidence and trust on the part of the citizen on our behaviour here as their representative, as government decision maker who is concerned with the welfare of our citizens.
If we refuse to even allow the light to come into the room by closing all windows and all doors, then that is the time when these mischievous kinds of insinuations will flourish. Just take a look at your room. If your room has never seen the sunlight, there might be lots of bugs in there, lots of bacteria growing, mould perhaps; but, if you let the sun shine in and let the light come in there, then all this will be stopped, all the growth of insinuation, scandals and all kinds of demeanours that are unbecoming of us will be stopped and we can restore the confidence of the public in our role as part of the government, whether we are in power or whether we are in the opposition.
There is another point I like to make. In the law of agency, if the principal authorizes another to be an agent, as long as the authority is given, it is the principal himself who shall be bound. He cannot say, I did not intend what the agent says. This means that, when the honourable minister appointed somebody to speak for him, he himself is speaking through the person as the principal. In doing so, he himself is interfering with that kind of relationship that we have constitutionally established that these are supposed to be autonomous, independent bodies of government, the judiciary and the political branch.
That itself is a ground to justify people stepping down as a matter of honour. In the olden days, if somebody slapped you in the face or spit at you publicly, because you have honour, you would challenge the person to a duel. You will lay down your life for the sake of your honour. I do not see so much behaviour nowadays. We do not at all--we have become thick skinned that we sacrifice our integrity as a person for the sake of short-term advantages and benefits. We think that our being in public office is permanent. It is not so. We are here on a temporary public trust. Once the trust has been shattered, like the mirror, it cannot be restored.
You have seen in other jurisdictions, cabinet ministers going down in general elections because the people no longer trust them, nor the government. That will happen to each of us inevitably, in due time. Therefore, it is while we are in positions of authority and power, we should keep that role almost above and beyond suspicion; like Caesar's wife, an occupant of a public office shall be above even the shadow of any kind of suspicion. That can be relieved if we allow an inquiry as to the facts by a person who is not interested one way or the other. That is an independent inquiry by an outsider, outside of our jurisdiction who may be called in to look into what actually happened.
You cannot say that this is what happened when you are talking about the mind of another person who, by institutional arrangements, is supposed to be independent and can only be allowed to speak for herself. If she cannot speak because of some other circumstances, that has to be explained to the citizens, and that can only be explained if there is a third person outside of the jurisdiction making factual inquiry.
The minister cannot say "sue me" because he is the chief enforcer of the law. How can any citizen have the legal standing to sue the Attorney General, Minister of Justice in Manitoba? Who is going to pay for his lawyer? That is not a reason to install the clearing of his name. But his name is not only his name; it is the name of his government, his own colleagues in cabinet, his own Premier. That is a very important thing to remember, because if the local bread, you put something in a slice of bread and it is still a loaf of bread, the whole bread will be infected and there will be some kind of public--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.